Universities as ‘Global Citizens’: Reflections and Learning …
95
preparation of the residential fieldwork, the researchers started to develop a reflective
dialogue (Chiu 2006; Wilson 2007; Nicholls 2009).
Reflective methods are important in participatory research. This is because they
help researchers to become aware and include a wide range of voices and perspectives (not only the most prominent) from the participants as well as from themselves (Chiu 2006; Wilson 2007; Nicholls 2009). Brookfield (2002) provides four
lenses for critical reflection (originally designed for community college learning
and teaching experiences), which are: autobiographical experiences of learning,
the learners’ eyes, our colleagues’ experiences and the theoretical literature. The
researchers used these lenses to help orientate reflections. In this reflection, the three
researchers conceptualised themselves as learners.
This reflective process was highlighted by the discussions about ethical approval
for the project. During the fieldwork, the three researchers met every night to reflect
on the day and made any changes required for the subsequent days of data collection. During these meetings the three researchers developed their reflective dialogue,
making notes of key aspects to be further discussed.
After analysing the data collected during the fieldwork, writing and submitting a
paper to an academic journal (Barrios et al. 2020), the researchers met to record a
final reflective dialogue. In preparation for this dialogue the researchers read their
individual and collective reflective notes written during the research project. The
dialogue was driven by the researchers’ questions to each other. In this respect it
was similar to an unstructured interview. However, the three researchers acted as
interviewers and interviewees simultaneously. The whole dialogue (55’28” long) was
audio recorded and divided in three. Each researcher did a verbatim transcription of
about 18 min (i.e. a third of the whole audio recording).
The three researchers triangulated the results of the data analysis whilst engaging
in a process of self-reflection to acknowledge the biases inherent in their own research
personas. Thus, the three researchers coded the whole reflective dialogue independently. A framework was developed throughout the research project whilst having
the reflective dialogues. The framework included four main aspects:
1. Researchers perceptions of power relations between the researchers and the Dique
Channel participants.
2. Agency of the researchers as perceived by themselves
3. Identity of the researchers as perceived by themselves.
4. Interactions between 1, 2 and 3.
The first stage of coding was done assigning text to a unit of analysis for aspects 1,
2, and 3 of the analysis framework and to identify themes. The second stage focused
on the 4th aspect to analyse the interactions between 1, 2 and 3. Each researcher
worked in stages 1 and 2 of the data analysis independently. The results were only
discussed once the two stages of coding were completed by all the researchers.
Researcher A: She defines herself as a multidisciplinary researcher. She started
to work in academic research before starting or completing her PhD. Her background is in music, arts and sustainable development. Researcher A has 6 years’
experience working in higher education. Her workload is focused on research with
95
preparation of the residential fieldwork, the researchers started to develop a reflective
dialogue (Chiu 2006; Wilson 2007; Nicholls 2009).
Reflective methods are important in participatory research. This is because they
help researchers to become aware and include a wide range of voices and perspectives (not only the most prominent) from the participants as well as from themselves (Chiu 2006; Wilson 2007; Nicholls 2009). Brookfield (2002) provides four
lenses for critical reflection (originally designed for community college learning
and teaching experiences), which are: autobiographical experiences of learning,
the learners’ eyes, our colleagues’ experiences and the theoretical literature. The
researchers used these lenses to help orientate reflections. In this reflection, the three
researchers conceptualised themselves as learners.
This reflective process was highlighted by the discussions about ethical approval
for the project. During the fieldwork, the three researchers met every night to reflect
on the day and made any changes required for the subsequent days of data collection. During these meetings the three researchers developed their reflective dialogue,
making notes of key aspects to be further discussed.
After analysing the data collected during the fieldwork, writing and submitting a
paper to an academic journal (Barrios et al. 2020), the researchers met to record a
final reflective dialogue. In preparation for this dialogue the researchers read their
individual and collective reflective notes written during the research project. The
dialogue was driven by the researchers’ questions to each other. In this respect it
was similar to an unstructured interview. However, the three researchers acted as
interviewers and interviewees simultaneously. The whole dialogue (55’28” long) was
audio recorded and divided in three. Each researcher did a verbatim transcription of
about 18 min (i.e. a third of the whole audio recording).
The three researchers triangulated the results of the data analysis whilst engaging
in a process of self-reflection to acknowledge the biases inherent in their own research
personas. Thus, the three researchers coded the whole reflective dialogue independently. A framework was developed throughout the research project whilst having
the reflective dialogues. The framework included four main aspects:
1. Researchers perceptions of power relations between the researchers and the Dique
Channel participants.
2. Agency of the researchers as perceived by themselves
3. Identity of the researchers as perceived by themselves.
4. Interactions between 1, 2 and 3.
The first stage of coding was done assigning text to a unit of analysis for aspects 1,
2, and 3 of the analysis framework and to identify themes. The second stage focused
on the 4th aspect to analyse the interactions between 1, 2 and 3. Each researcher
worked in stages 1 and 2 of the data analysis independently. The results were only
discussed once the two stages of coding were completed by all the researchers.
Researcher A: She defines herself as a multidisciplinary researcher. She started
to work in academic research before starting or completing her PhD. Her background is in music, arts and sustainable development. Researcher A has 6 years’
experience working in higher education. Her workload is focused on research with