Abstract
Mertens regards the transformative paradigm as an extension of critical and emancipatory traditions in social research. Researchers classed as working within the transformative paradigm, she notes, consciously tie the research enterprise to the furthering of social justice concerns. This chapter revisits her account of this paradigm and its relationship to “other” paradigms. After introducing myself and my concerns as a researcher, I discuss her understanding of the axiological commitments which guide research work within the transformative paradigm, commitments which she believes inform epistemological, ontological and methodological considerations. While looking at her arguments (and some variations in them in different writings of hers), I add what I see as additional angles, primarily with reference to a number of authors advocating critical systemic thinking-and-practice and advocating Indigenous systemic approaches. I focus on considering how research as an endeavor carries specific responsibilities, arising from our recognition of the involvement of social research in shaping the social and ecological worlds of which it is a part.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A standpoint epistemology as posited by certain Marxist and feminist-oriented authors suggests that research always begins from a standpoint, which needs to be acknowledged. A dialogical standpoint epistemology focuses on continued dialogue around initial standpoints/positions/perspectives. (See Romm, 1997, paras 6.1–6.5.)
- 2.
Molefe (2015) explains that because African metaphysical systems generally construe reality in terms of all-inclusive relationships, he does not agree with certain (dominant) interpretations of African humanism (including that of Gyekye, 1995, 2010) where implicit dichotomies between “humans” and “nature” are posited. He sets out, as he puts it, “to challenge and repudiate humanism as the best interpretation of African ethics” (2015, p. 59). He considers that “a truly African ethics … demands that we accord moral status to some aspects of the environment, like animals, for their own sakes” (pp. 59–60). He favorably cites Murove’s article (2007), where the concept of Ukama is seen as linked with that of Ubuntu.
- 3.
As noted by Mackenzie and Knipe, one can create groupings of paradigmatic positions by perusing the terms used in research texts to speak about research, and by looking at the meanings of the terms as used, so that one can then consider the language commonly associated with the “broad paradigm groups” (2006, p. 195). The terms are given meanings within the language register, seen as a system of concepts, which together construct a vision of “research”.
- 4.
Mertens states that this (postpositivist) view can otherwise be called the “scientific method paradigm” (1999, p. 4). This definition of postpositivism as associated with a particular understanding of the scientific method, recognizes that proponents hereof deny that scientifically produced statements can ever be verified (as in earlier positivist positions).
- 5.
Here, Mertens is 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). That is, in inquiries guided by the transformative paradigm, whatever form of inquiry is being undertaken, the values of those involved cannot be bracketed out of the study.
- 6.
As with other authors, positions held by authors at points in time can become re-developed. In response to an article of mine (2015a), in which I expressed some reservations about Mertens’ ontological position, she mentioned via email (12 January 2016) that she would say that “there are versions of reality and some sustain oppression and some lead to increased social justice”. (I expand upon this in Chap. 9, Sect. 9.4.)
- 7.
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).
- 8.
The distinction between research and evaluation can be regarded as fuzzy once we recognize that research and evaluation both involve working with values. (See Romm & Dichaba, 2015, p. 224, and see also Footnote 6.)
- 9.
Gergen (2015, p. 291) notes in this regard that Austin (1962) famously drew the “distinction between constative and performative utterances”, where the former refer to statements of fact, essentially (presumably) falsifiable through observation, and where the latter refer to statements made with the intent to effect changes in existing states of affairs. However, Gergen states that Austin “was himself quick to illuminate the impurities of the distinction, in that so-called constatives also can implicitly contain calls to action” (2015, p. 291). Denzin too points to the performative power of language when he states that “words matter” (2001, p. 24). (See also Denzin’s suggestion, 2003, pp. 25–26, for consciously embracing performativity.)
- 10.
In response to my article in which I explored Mertens’ position in terms of a critical systemic and Indigenous lens (2015b), she mentioned to me (12 January 2016) that “I agree that I should include ecological justice as well; that is important”; and she referred me to her writing “with Fiona Cram on the intersection of transformative and indigenous paradigms”.
- 11.
Setswana is one of the Indigenous languages of southern Africa.
- 12.
Pushor and Clandinin indicate (2009, p. 292) that “not all approaches to narrative inquiry see this connection to growth and change”. Some researchers may see their work as “descriptive or analytic and they do not regard the research in and of itself leading to change” (p. 292). Pushor and Clandinin cite Atkinson’s approach (1995) as an instance of this view. However, the argument in this book is that whether or not the research endeavor sets out to be implicated in change, the research is likely to have some effect on the lives of the people being studied (and in the broader community and society)—an effect that needs to be accounted for.
- 13.
Bowers’ (2011) account of process-structure as a way of conceptualizing systems seems to be similar to the position suggested by Giddens (1984) when he develops the concept of structuration processes as applied to society. As Bowers explains it, “process–structures are coupled transforms. That is, as structure changes, process changes and vice versa” (2011, p. 545). In Giddens’ theory of structuration, the structural properties of social structures exist only in their instantiations in social practices; hence social actors through their practices can exercise some degree of agency in their involvement in society (1984, p. 17). In addition, Kuntz argues that we need to emphasize, in accord with poststructuralism (as a theoretical position), that agency is relational, so that we do not posit “subjects” as somehow separable from the multiple and varied contexts in which they are immersed (2015, p. 51).
- 14.
If one still wishes to use the terminology of “mapping”, it can be shifted in connotation to imply that one is mapping (with others) a way forward—see, for example, Bausch and Flanagan (2013), Christakis (2004), Flanagan and Christakis (2009), Laouris (2014), Laouris and Michaelides (2017), Shiakides (2010), for accounts of how maps can be developed with this intention. See also White’s (2003) discussion of how maps can function to envision leverage points for action.
- 15.
This can indeed be seen as an example of how ill-reflected upon theorizing (as undertaken by certain scholars) which comes to imbue common-sense perceptions can function as what Gergen calls a stranglehold in its view of “human nature” or human potential (1978, p. 1354).
- 16.
Midgley clarified in an email to me (28 July 2016) that the research was undertaken by a team of mainly non-Māori researchers from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (New Zealand), with one member of the team being Māori and another having married into a Māori family. He also explained that “from a Māori perspective, you can say you are Māori if you can identify even one distant Māori ancestor; but then if you want to be an actual part of the Māori community, you have to learn their culture and traditions”.
- 17.
In the process of our writing a joint article (published in 2015), where we deliberated around this, Kofi Quan-Baffour suggested to me that Indigeneity is not about “skin color”, but about where ones sympathies lie (in terms of self-identification). But, of course, as Cram, Chilisa, and Mertens point out, “the recognition of who is Indigenous is fraught with tensions related to ethnicity, race, colonization, and culture” (2013, p. 13). I am aware that I have occupied and continue to occupy a very privileged position by virtue of being seen as “White” in terms of racialized categorizations—see Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2. Nevertheless, I would like to class myself as Indigenous oriented. Readers can listen to a podcast conversation held in September 2016 between Francis Akena and myself, which refers to the notion of being Indigenous oriented (and offers Akena’s interpretation of this in the context of our discussing the foregrounding of Indigenous worldviews and ecological practices): https://archive.org/details/NormaRommAndFrancisAkena. I also refer to this notion in Romm, 2017d, p. 4.
- 18.
In regard to paradigmatic placement of the “new materialist” position which Kuntz explicates in his book on the Responsible methodologist, he indicates that although this approach to responsible inquiry includes assumptions about how we “live, know and come to know”, he is not intent on trying to “capture or otherwise render the totality of a new materialist paradigm” (2015, p. 82). He makes the point that in “true new materialist form” (which focuses on how the world is always open to new contexts and meanings), he recognizes that “paradigmatic boundaries are never fixed nor fully developed” (2015, p. 82). His intention in outlining a new materialist position (as an alternative paradigm) is to “point out how the recent embrace of new materialism in some circles presents methodological possibilities that cannot be ignored” (p. 82). In this book I have not focused on the distinctiveness of this position as a paradigm, but have cited his work as it relates to the various paradigms that I do discuss. In the way in which I see it, his work resonates with the sentiments of transformative paradigmatic positions. And I concur with his call for responsible methodologists not to become fixated on methodology as “procedure”. I explore this further in Chap. 10.
- 19.
This terminology of working with rather than within paradigmatic boundaries has been proposed by McIntyre-Mills (2006, pp. 20 and 81).
References
Akena, F. A. (2017). Customary land tenure and ecological sustainability in Acholi land, Northern Uganda. In J. J. McIntyre-Mills, Y. Cocoran-Nantes, & N. R. A. Romm (Eds.), Balancing individualism and collectivism: Social and environmental justice (pp. 221–237). New York: Springer.
Aphane, M. J. D., Dlamini, T., Magwaza, M., Manzini, N., Mkhonta, F., Mthembu, L., & Vilakazi, M. L. (1993). Inheritance in Swaziland: Law and practice. Report co-ordinated by M. J. D. Aphane. Swaziland: Social Science Research Unit, University of Swaziland.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.
Bausch, K. (2016). Back stories for robust postmodern living. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.
Bausch, K. C., & Flanagan, T. R. (2013). A confluence of third-phase science and dialogic design science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(4), 414–429.
Bishop, R. (1994). Initiating empowering research? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 29(1), 175–188.
Bongmba, E. K. (2014). Spirituality: An intersubjective practice. In N. N. Wane, F. A. Akena, & A. A. Ilmi (Eds.), Spiritual discourse in the academy (pp. 33–50). New York: Peter Lang.
Bowers, T. D. (2011). Toward a framework for multiparadigm multimethodologies. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28(5), 537–552.
Bristol, L. (2012). Postcolonial thought: A theoretical and methodological means for thinking through culturally ethical research. In J. Lavia & S. Mahlomaholo (Eds.), Culture, education, and community: Expressions of the postcolonial imagination (pp. 15–32). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cannella, G. S., & Manuelito, K. D. (2008). Feminisms from unthought locations: Indigenous worldviews, marginalized feminisms, and revisioning an anticolonial social science. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies (pp. 45–59). London: Sage.
Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. London: Sage.
Chilisa, B., Major, T. E., & Khudu-Petersen, K. (2017). Community engagement with a postcolonial, African-based relational paradigm. Qualitative Research, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117696176.
Chilisa, B., & Tsheko, G. N. (2014). Mixed methods in Indigenous research: Building relationships for sustainable intervention outcomes. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(3), 222–233.
Christakis, A. N. (2004). Wisdom of the people. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21(5), 479–488.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). London: Harper Collins.
Cram, F. (2015). Harnessing global social justice and social change with multimethod and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 677–687). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cram, F., Chilisa, B., & Mertens, D. M. (2013). The journey begins. In D. M. Mertens, F. Cram, & B. Chilisa (Eds.), Indigenous pathways into social research (pp. 11–40). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
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.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23–46.
Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performance ethnography: Critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 1–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dillard, C. B. (2006). When the music changes, so should the dance: Cultural and spiritual considerations in paradigm “proliferation”. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 59–76.
Flanagan, T. R., & Christakis, A. N. (2009). The talking point: creating an environment for exploring complex meaning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Emancipatory practice: Some contributions from social theory and practice. Systems Practice, 9(2), 113–128.
Gergen, K. J. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11), 1344.
Gergen, K. J. (2015). From mirroring to worldmaking: Research as future forming. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(3), 287–310.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Goduka, N. (2012). Re-discovering Indigenous knowledge—ulwazi Lwemveli for strengthening sustainable livelihood opportunities within rural contexts in the Eastern Cape province. Indilinga—African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, 11(1), 1–19.
Gonzalez, P. A., Minkler, M., Garcia, A. P., Gordon, M., Garzón, C., Palaniappan, M., et al. (2011). Community-based participatory research and policy advocacy to reduce diesel exposure in West Oakland. California. American Journal of Public Health, 101(S1), S166–S175.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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 toward conscious evolution. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21(5), 489–503.
Hayes, M. T., Sameshima, P., & Watson, F. (2015). Imagination as method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(1), 36–52.
Hölscher, F., & Romm, N. R. A. (1989). Development as a process of human consciousness. In J. K. Coetzee (Ed.), Development is for people (pp. 108–136). Johannesburg: Macmillan.
Johnson, R. B. (2009). Comments on Howe: Toward a more inclusive “scientific research in education”. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 449–457.
Kaschula, S. A., Twine, W. E., & Scholes, M. C. (2005). Coppice harvesting of fuelwood species on a South African common: Utilizing scientific and indigenous knowledge in community based natural resource management. Human Ecology, 33(3), 387–418.
Kenny, C. (2002). North American Indian, Métis and Inuit women speak about culture, education and work. Canada: Status of Women Canada’s Policy Research.
Koitsiwe, M. (2013). Prospects and challenges of becoming an Indigenous researcher. In D. M. Mertens, F. Cram, & B. Chilisa (Eds.), Indigenous pathways into social research (pp. 261–275). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Kuntz, A. M. (2015). The responsible methodologist: Inquiry, truth-telling, and social justice. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Kvale, S. (2002). The social construction of validity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The qualitative inquiry reader (pp. 297–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2003). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (2nd ed., pp. 398–432). London: Sage.
Laouris, Y. (2014). Teams construct knowledge during project-driven social interactions. Educating in Dialog: Constructing Meaning and Building Knowledge with Dialogic Technology, 24, 111–113.
Laouris, Y., & Michaelides, M. (2017). Structured democratic dialogue: An application of a mathematical problem structuring method to facilitate reforms with local authorities in Cyprus. European Journal of Operational Research, 11–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.039.
Lather, P. (1986). 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 into Practice, 31(2), 87–99.
Lavia, J., & Mahlomaholo, S. (2012). Introduction: Imagining the postcolonial. In J. Lavia & S. Mahlomaholo (Eds.), Culture, education and community: Expressions of the postcolonial imagination (pp. 1–13). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Letiecq, B., & Schmalzbauer, L. (2012). Community-based participatory research with Mexican migrants in a new rural destination: A good fit? Action Research, 10(3), 244–259.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289.
Lincoln, Y. S. (2001a). Engaging sympathies: Relationships between action research and social constructivism. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 124–132). London: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S. (2001b). Varieties of validity: Quality in qualitative research. In J. Smart & W. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 25–72). New York: Agathon Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2003). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (2nd ed., pp. 253–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The constructivist credo. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Lowan-Trudeau, G. (2014). Considering ecological métissage: To blend or not to blend?. Journal of Experiential Education, 37(4), 351–366.
Maathai, W. (2006). Unbowed: A memoir. New York: Anchor Books.
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205.
McIntyre-Mills, J. J. (2006). Systemic governance and accountability: Working and re-working the conceptual and spatial boundaries. New York: Springer.
McIntyre-Mills, J. J. (2008). Systemic ethics: Social, economic and environmental implications of eating our yellow cake in South Australia. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(2), 225–248.
McIntyre-Mills, J. J. (2014a). Systemic ethics and non-anthropocentric stewardship. New York: Springer.
McIntyre-Mills, J. J. (2014b). Transformation from Wall Street to wellbeing. New York: Springer.
McIntyre-Mills, J. J. (2017). Planetary passport: Representation, accountability and re-generation. New York: Springer.
McIntyre-Mills, J. J., & Binchai, N. (2014). Being, having, doing and interacting: Toward ethical democracy, governance and stewardship. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2013, Hai Phong, Vietnam.
McKay, V. I., & Romm, N. R. A. (2008). Active research toward the addressal of HIV/AIDS in the informal economy in Zambia: Recognition of complicity in unfolding situations. Action Research, 6(2), 149–170.
McKay, V. I., & Romm, N. R. A. (2015). Narratives of agency: The experiences of Braille literacy practitioners in the Kha Ri Gude South African mass literacy campaign. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(4), 435–456.
Mertens, D. M. (1999). Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(1), 1–14.
Mertens, D. M. (2004). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M. (2007a). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212–225.
Mertens, D. M. (2007b). Transformative considerations: Inclusion and social justice. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 86–90.
Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 469–474.
Mertens, D. M. (2011). Mixed methods as tools for social change. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(3), 195–197.
Mertens, D. M. (2012). Transformative mixed methods: Addressing inequities. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 802–813.
Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M. (2016). Advancing social change in South Africa through transformative research. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 5–17.
Mertens, D. M., & McLaughlin, J. A. (2004). Research and evaluation methods in special education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Midgley, G. (2001). Systems thinking for the 21st century. In G. Ragsdell & J. Wilby (Eds.), Systems thinking for the 21st century: Understanding complexity (pp. 249–256). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Midgley, G., Ahuriri-Driscoll, A., Foote, J., Hepi, M., Taimona, H., Rogers-Koroheke, M., et al. (2007). Practitioner identity in systemic intervention: Reflections on the promotion of environmental health through Māori community development. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24, 233–247.
Midgley, G., Johnson, M. P., & Chichirau, G. (2017). What is community operational research? European Journal of Operational Research (in press).
Midgley, G., & Ochoa-Arias, A. E. (2001). Unfolding a theory of systemic intervention. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14(5), 615–649.
Molefe, M. (2015). A rejection of humanism in African moral tradition. Theoria, 62(143), 59–77.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053.
Mugadza, G. (2015). Systems thinking and design thinking: Complementary approaches. Systems Thinking World Journal: Reflection in Action, 4, 1–7.
Murove, M. F. (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, Pretoria.
Murove, M. F. (2007). The Shona ethic of Ukuma with reference to the immortality of values. The Mankind Quarterly, 48, 179–189.
Ndimande, B. S. (2012). Decolonizing research in post-apartheid South Africa. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(3), 215–226.
Nyamnjoh, F. B. (2004). A relevant education for African development: Some epistemological considerations. Africa Development, 29(1), 161–184.
Oczak, M., & Niedźwieńska, A. (2007). Debriefing in deceptive research: A proposed new procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(3), 49–59.
Ossai, N. B. (2010). African indigenous knowledge systems (AIKS). Simbiosis, 7(2), 1–13.
Pinnegar, S. (2007). Starting with living stories. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 247–250). London: Sage.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.
Pushor, D., & Clandinin, D. J. (2009). The interconnections between narrative inquiry and action research. In S. E. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), Handbook of educational action research (pp. 290–300). London: Sage.
Quan-Baffour, K. P. (2017). A systemic view of the value of environmental conservation: The case of Bono Takyiman, Ghana. In J. J. McIntyre-Mills, Y. Cocoran-Nantes, & N. R. A. Romm (Eds.), Balancing individualism and collectivism: Social and environmental justice (pp. 211–220). New York: Springer.
Quan-Baffour, K. P., & Romm, N. R. A. (2015). Ubuntu-inspired training of adult literacy teachers as a route to generating “community” enterprises. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(4), 455–474.
Robertson, A. F. (2001). Greed: gut feelings, growth, and history. Oxford: Blackwell.
Roman-Alcalá, A. (2015). Broadening the land question in food sovereignty to northern settings: A case study of occupy the farm. Globalizations, 12(4), 545–558.
Romm, N. R. A. (1990). A humanist analysis of Marxism. In C. J. Alant (Ed.), Sociology and society (pp. 23–33). Johannesburg: Southern.
Romm, N. R. A. (1995). Knowing as intervention: Reflections on the application of systems ideas. Systems Practice, 8(2), 137–167.
Romm, N. R. A. (1996a). Critical theory as a way to understand development. In J. Coetzee & J. Graaff (Eds.), Development and reconstruction in the new South Africa (pp. 160–195). Halfway House (South Africa): International Thomson.
Romm, N. R. A. (1996b). Systems methodologies and intervention: The issue of researcher responsibility. In R. L. Flood & N. R. A. Romm (Eds.), Critical systems thinking: Current research and practice (pp. 179–193). New York: Plenum.
Romm, N. R. A. (1997). Becoming more accountable: A comment on Hammersley and Gomm. Sociological Research Online, 2(3) (Art. 2).
Romm, N. R. A. (1999). Exploring links between action research (AR) and “alternatives”. In A. W. Castell, A. J. Gregory, G. A. Hindle, M. E. James, & G. Ragsdell (Eds.), Synergy matters: Working with systems in the 21st Century (pp. 199–204). New York: Springer.
Romm, N. R. A. (2001a). Accountability in social research: Issues and debates. New York: Springer.
Romm, N. R. A. (2001b). Critical theoretical concerns in relation to development. In J. K. Coetzee, J. Graaff, F. Hendricks, & G. Wood (Eds.), Development theory, policy and practice (pp. 141–153). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Romm, N. R. A. (2002a). A trusting constructivist approach to systemic inquiry: Exploring accountability. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19(5), 455–467.
Romm, N. R. A. (2002b). Responsible knowing: A better basis for management science. Philosophy of Management, 2(1), 57–72.
Romm, N. R. A. (2006a). The social significance of Churchman’s epistemological position. In J. J. McIntyre-Mills (Ed.), Rescuing the Enlightenment from itself (pp. 68–92). New York: Springer.
Romm, N. R. A. (2006b). An exploration and extension of Churchman’s insights: Toward the tackling of racial discrimination as a world problem. In J. J. McIntyre-Mills (Ed.), Rescuing the Enlightenment from itself (pp. 289–331). New York: Springer.
Romm, N. R. A. (2007). Issues of accountability in survey, ethnographic, and action research. In A. Rwomire & F. B. Nyamnjoh (Eds.), Challenges and responsibilities of social research in Africa: Ethical issues (pp. 51–76). Addis Ababa: Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA).
Romm, N. R. A. (2010). New racism: Revisiting researcher accountabilities. New York: Springer.
Romm, N. R. A. (2013a). Employing questionnaires in terms of a constructivist epistemological stance: Reconsidering researchers’ involvement in the unfolding of social life. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12, 652–669.
Romm, N. R. A. (2013b). Revisiting social dominance theory: Invoking a more retroductively-oriented approach to systemic theorizing. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 26(2), 111–129.
Romm, N. R. A. (2014a). Indigenous ways of knowing and possibilities for re-envisaging globalization: Implications for human ecology. Journal of Human Ecology, 48(1), 123–133.
Romm, N. R. A. (2014b). Active and accountable social inquiry: Implications and examples. Participatory Educational Research, 1(2), 13–20.
Romm, N. R. A. (2015a). Reviewing the transformative paradigm: A critical systemic and relational (Indigenous) lens. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(5), 411–427.
Romm, N. R. A. (2015b). Conducting focus groups in terms of an appreciation of Indigenous ways of knowing: Some examples from South Africa. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(1) (Art. 2).
Romm, N. R. A. (2017a). Social dominance theory. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social theory. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Romm, N. R. A. (2017b). Conducting focus groups in terms of an appreciation of Indigenous ways of knowing: Invoking an Indigenous-oriented paradigm. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Doing cross-cultural research in health social sciences. New York: Springer. (in press).
Romm, N. R. A. (2017c). Reflections on a multi-layered intervention in the South African public education system: Some ethical implications for community operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.022.
Romm, N. R. A. (2017d). Foregrounding critical systemic and Indigenous ways of collective knowing toward (re)directing the Anthropocene. In J. J. McIntyre-Mills, Y. Cocoran-Nantes, & N. R. A. Romm (Eds.), Balancing individualism and collectivism: Social and environmental justice (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Springer.
Romm, N. R. A. (2017e). 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, PA: IGI Global.
Romm, N. R. A., & Adman, P. (2004). Exploring the complexity of human dynamics within 360-degree feedback processes: The development of (active) qualitative inquiry. Journal of Business and Society, 17, 170–189.
Romm, N. R. A., & Dichaba, M. M. (2015). Assessing the Kha Ri Gude Mass Literacy Campaign: A developmental evaluation. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 55(2), 220–241.
Romm, N. R. A., & Hsu, C.-Y. (2002). Reconsidering the exploration of power distance: An active case study approach. Omega, 30(6), 403–414.
Romm, N. R. A., Nel, N. M., & Tlale, L. D. N. (2013). Active facilitation of focus groups: Exploring the implementation of inclusive education with research participants. South African Journal of Education, 33(4), 1–14. (Art. 811).
Romm, N. R. A., & Tlale, L. D. N. (2016). Nurturing research relationships: Showing care and catalysing action in a South African school research-and-intervention project. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 18–36.
Roos, V. (2008). The Mmogo-method™: Discovering symbolic community interactions. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 18(4), 659–667.
Ross, E. (2010). African spirituality, ethics and traditional healing: Implications for Indigenous South African social work education and practice. South African Journal of Business and Law, 3(1), 44–51.
Scott, J. (2010). Quantitative methods and gender inequalities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(3), 223–236.
Shaw, I. (2010). Ethics and the practice of qualitative research. In P. Atkinson & S. Delamont (Eds.), Qualitative research methods (pp. 401–427). London: Sage.
Shiakides, S. (2010). Practical rationality with a practical intent: A revised Habermasian conception centered on communicative negotiation. Cardiff: Cardiff University Press.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. New York: Zed Books.
Ssali, S. N., & Theobald, S. (2016). Using life histories to explore gendered experiences of conflict in Gulu District, Northern Uganda: Implications for post-conflict health reconstruction. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 81–98.
Stephens, O. A. (2012). Investigating effects of Six Thinking Hats and emotional intelligence training on creativity thinking and emotional intelligence of recidivists in Lagos State, Nigeria. Doctoral dissertation, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria.
Tengo, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledges for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43, 579–591.
Tlale, L. D. N., & Romm, N. R. A. (2017). Systemic thinking and practice toward facilitating inclusive education: Reflections on a case of co-generated knowledge and action in South Africa. Systemic Practice and Action Research. doi:10.1007/s11213-017-9437-4.
Troncale, L. (2004–2007). Courses in systems science at the California State University at Pomona for students of Comparative Systems Analysis. Unpublished lectures.
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.
White, L. (2003). The role of systems research and operational research in community involvement: A case study of a health action zone. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 20(2), 133–145.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax: Fernwood.
Wilson, S., & Wilson, A. (2013). Neyo way in ik issi: A family practice of Indigenous research informed by land. In D. M. Mertens, F. Cram, & B. Chilisa (Eds.), Indigenous pathways into social research (pp. 333–352). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Woldegies, B. D. (2014). Economic empowerment through income generating activities and social mobilization: The case of married Amhara women of Wadla Woreda, North Wollo Zone, Ethiopia. Doctoral thesis, Antioch University, Yellow Springs, Ohio.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Romm, N.R.A. (2018). Introduction to the Book: Activating Transformative Intent in Consideration of the Immersion of Research in Social and Ecological Existence. In: Responsible Research Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74386-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74386-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74384-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74386-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)