Conclusion: Potential for Transformative Research to Address Risks

  • Janet McIntyre-Mills
  • Norma R. A. Romm
Part of the Contemporary Systems Thinking book series (CST)


Intersectional interventions are needed to match and address the needs of the marginalised in social life. Our focus is on the voiceless as they become displaced and vulnerable as a result of losing habitat or homes. We begin with some deliberations by Janet in which she summarises her conceptual background to this argument and then explains the importance of practising research to address social and ecological justice. This is followed by her creation of a hypothetical vignette which serves to illustrate options for systemic intervention. We conclude the paper and draw together key points made in the book. Norma engages with Janet’s vignette and explanation of ways to expand pragmatism by thinking through the consequences of our choices. A key message for the conclusion and the two volume series is the importance of combining approaches in response to areas of concern. Norma suggests ways of ‘stretching’ different paradigmatic/philosophical bases for doing research responsibly to address complex issues, including ways of practising multiple and mixed methods research that focus on a transformative agenda.


Multiple and mixed methods research Researcher responsibility Intervention intent Justice-oriented (co-)inquiry Cognition and action 


  1. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy. What is the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson.Google Scholar
  2. Cram, F., & Mertens, D. M. (2015). Transformative and indigenous frameworks for multimethod and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 91–109). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Casey, S. (2015). Voices in the Ocean. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  4. Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Chilisa, B., Major, T. E., & Khudu-Petersen, K. (2017). Community engagement with a postcolonial, African-based relational paradigm. Qualitative Research, 1–14. Scholar
  6. Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach and its enemies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhamoon, R. K. (2011). Considerations on mainstreaming intersectionality. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 230–243. Scholar
  9. Flood, R., & Carson, E. (1993). Dealing with complexity: An introduction to the theory and application of systems science (2nd ed.). London: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gergen, K. J. (2015). From mirroring to worldmaking: Research as future forming. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(3), 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., & Schwartzman, S. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2015). Mixed methods research: The “thing-ness” problem. Qualitative Health Research, 25(6), 775–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Griffin, A. J. (2015). Feminist approaches to multimethod and mixed method research: Theory and praxis. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 72–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lawrence, A., & Spence, G. (2009). The elephant whisperer. London: Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. McIntyre-Mills, J. (2010). Wellbeing, mindfulness and the global commons. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17(7–8), 44–72.Google Scholar
  18. McIntyre-Mills, J. (2014a). Systemic ethics to support wellbeing. Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics (pp. 1–12), 26 Feb 2014 (Latest version). ‘Early view. Dordrecht: Springer, 2013. Co-determination; Interconnectedness; Interdependency; Interrelatedness.Google Scholar
  19. McIntyre-Mills, J. (2014b). Reconsidering boundaries. Sociopedia, International Sociological Association, 1–17.
  20. McIntyre-Mills, J. (2014c). Systemic ethics and non-anthropocentric stewardship. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McIntyre-Mills, J., De Vries, & Binchai, N. (2014). Transformation from wall street to wellbeing. New York: Springer, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McIntyre-Mills, & Wirawan. (2017). Governing the Anthropocene: through balancing individualism and collectivism as a way to manage our ecological footprint’. In J. McIntyre-Mills, N. Romm, & Y. Corcoran-Nantes (Eds.), Balancing individualism and collectivism: Social and environmental justice (pp. 75–95). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative considerations: Inclusion and social justice. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Mertens, D. M. (2016). Advancing social change in South Africa through transformative research. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pauli, G. (2010). The blue economy: Report to the Club of Rome. Taos: Paradigm Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Pert, C. (1999). The molecules of emotion: Why you feel the way you feel. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  29. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  30. Popper, K. R. (1969). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems: Developments in design methodology. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Romm, N. R. A. (2015). Reviewing the transformative paradigm: A critical systemic and relational (Indigenous) lens. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(5), 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romm, N. R. A. (2017). Researching Indigenous ways of knowing-and-being: Revitalizing relational quality of living. In P. Ngulube (Ed.), Handbook of research on theoretical perspectives on Indigenous Knowledge Systems in developing countries (pp. 22–48). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Romm, N. R. A. (2018). Responsible research practice: Revisiting transformative paradigm in social research. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shanor, K., & Kanwal, J. (2009). Bats sing and mice giggle: Revealing the secret lives of Smith, A. 1776 The Wealth of Nations. Retrieved from
  36. Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations. Bantam Classic, Edited 2003; with notes and summary by Edwin Cannan; preface by Alan B. Kruege. Cited by Branko’s blog.
  37. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). (2007). Accessed 14 Feb 2016 at:
  38. Waal, D. (2006). Part 1: Morally evolved. In S. Macedo & J. Ober (Eds.), Primates and philosophers. How morality evolved. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wane, N. N., Akena, F. A., & Ilmi, A. A. (2014). Introduction. In N. N. Wane, F. A. Akena, & A. A. Ilmi (Eds.), Spiritual discourse in the academy (pp. 1–11). New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet McIntyre-Mills
    • 1
  • Norma R. A. Romm
    • 2
  1. 1.Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Adult Education and Youth DevelopmentUniversity of South AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations