Skip to main content

Collaborative Inquiry

Reciprocity and Authenticity

  • Chapter
Creative Spaces for Qualitative Researching

Part of the book series: Practice, Education, Work and Society ((PEWS,volume 5))

Abstract

Within new paradigm research, collaborative inquiry (CI) is used as an umbrella term to encompass genres of research that are participatory, democratic and reflective in design, method and dissemination. The principles embedded in participatory methodologies emphasise inclusive participation within a mutually beneficial research project where deep interpretive processes occur and members co-construct knowledge. At the heart of CI is a call for research to be a catalyst for action and, therefore, for change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Boser, S. (2007). Power, ethics, and the IRB: Dissonance over human participant review of participatory research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(8), 1060–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, N.J., Lee, J., Smith, L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice: Action, reflection, and making meaning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, D., & McGee, S. (2010). Collaborative inquiry: Process, theory and ethics. In J. Higgs, N. Cherry, R. Macklin & R. Ajjawi (Eds.), Researching practice: A discourse on qualitative methodologies (pp. 257–268). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L., Gilli, M., & Pelligra, V. (2008). Reciprocity: Theory and facts. International Review of Economics, 55 111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C.W. (2006). Refining social justice commitments through collaborative inquiry: Key rewards and challenges for teacher educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer, 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.T., Skipper, B.L., & Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2008). Power and knowledge. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 172–189). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halse, C., & Honey, A. (2007). Rethinking ethics review as institutional discourse. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 336–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of cooperative inquiry: Research “with” rather than “on” people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 179–199). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30, 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maiter, S., Simich, L., Jacobson, N. & Wise, J. (2008). Reciprocity: An ethic for community-based participatory action research. Action Research, 6(3), 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, K. (1997). Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations without prescription (methods for research by social scientists). Qualitative Inquiry, 3(1), 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narotzky, S., & Moreno, P. (2002). Reciprocity’s dark side: Negative reciprocity, morality and social reproduction. Anthropological Theory, 2(3), 281–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, K.M., & Takayoshi, P. (2003). Accepting roles created for us: The ethics of reciprocity. College Composition and Communication, 54(3), 394–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, P. (1994). Participation in human inquiry. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riger, S. (1999). Working together: Challenges in collaborative research on violence against women. Violence Against Women, 5(10), 1099–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowan, J. (2000). Research ethics. International Journal of Psychotherapy, 5(2), 103–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt, T.A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torbert, W.R. (1983). Initiating collaborative inquiry. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond Method (pp. 272–291). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weems, L. (2006) Unsettling politics, locating ethics: Representations of reciprocity in postpositivist inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(5), 994–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, R. (2002). Truth or fiction: Problems of validity and authenticity in narratives of action research. Educational Action Research, 10(1), 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bridges, D., McGee, S. (2011). Collaborative Inquiry. In: Higgs, J., Titchen, A., Horsfall, D., Bridges, D. (eds) Creative Spaces for Qualitative Researching. Practice, Education, Work and Society, vol 5. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-761-5_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships