View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Critical Communicative Methodology: Including Vulnerable Voices in Research through Dialogue

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Critical Communicative Methodology: Including Vulnerable Voices in Research through Dialogue
Language: English
Authors: Puigvert, Lidia, Christou, Miranda, Holford, John
Source: Cambridge Journal of Education. 2012 42(4):513-526.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Descriptors: Educational Research, Research Methodology, Inclusion, Equal Education, Social Justice, Epistemology, Interdisciplinary Approach, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: European Union
DOI: 10.1080/0305764X.2012.733341
ISSN: 0305-764X
Abstract: This article describes how Critical Communicative Methodology (CCM) has been used successfully to analyse educational inequalities in ways that generate real transformation towards social justice. We begin by arguing that educational research today should employ new methodological approaches that can ensure the inclusion of different voices in social science research and the production of knowledge that transforms social exclusion. We then analyse the main epistemological positions of CCM, based on Habermas' communicative action theory, and explain how it was implemented in the European Union-funded INCLUD-ED project. Finally, we illustrate how INCLUD-ED has had a social and political impact and we argue that research "with" vulnerable groups, based on the principles of CCM, can generate social and educational transformation.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 30
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: EJ985967
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEyI-s2jPsOSg0wF-eH10ylAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCWpiEvZTTIlHXmo7gIBEICBmRMi5YTFT1yNFJI48hiQemY-Oc6lCbggMtAStSNXdQ2W_XyEjRmHDB00d3AQkODAwiF6d2EZNTYTIz8-cDBiMsDiYTEqcLHiK1Wk3nKQ9dbNjwEathhBkAdVQx4vAe5ZxYlC0z3aJ5udq8rqLb-UWAlTLiPBeC-5wIXjdymvcPI0MxLc2Co-ZgeE4Yv6QLXioCcNhNRu96-XGQ==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0083493340;caj01dec.12;2019Feb20.14:25;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0083493340-1">Critical Communicative Methodology: including vulnerable voices in research through dialogue. </title> <p>This article describes how Critical Communicative Methodology (CCM) has been used successfully to analyse educational inequalities in ways that generate real transformation towards social justice. We begin by arguing that educational research today should employ new methodological approaches that can ensure the inclusion of different voices in social science research and the production of knowledge that transforms social exclusion. We then analyse the main epistemological positions of CCM, based on Habermas' communicative action theory, and explain how it was implemented in the European Union-funded INCLUD-ED project. Finally, we illustrate how INCLUD-ED has had a social and political impact and we argue that research with vulnerable groups, based on the principles of CCM, can generate social and educational transformation.</p> <p>Keywords: Critical Communicative Methodology; educational research; vulnerable groups; social transformation; social and educational impact</p> <hd id="AN0083493340-2">Introduction</hd> <p>A major challenge in educational research today is finding ways to translate research findings into actions and reforms that contribute towards overcoming educational inequality. Several researchers have pointed out that educational research has generally failed to influence teaching practice (Cordingley, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref1">3</reflink>]; Gardner & Pollard, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref2">10</reflink>]; McIntyre, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]; Pollard, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]); this is true even for research that aims to analyse and change the role of schools in situations of social, economic, and political marginalization. In this article, we start from the position that educational research needs to employ methodologies that invite the contributions of all educational agents (i.e. teachers, students, parents, administrators, and policy makers) in order to generate meaningful analyses of social reality and produce usable knowledge. We argue that traditional methodologies often disregard the views of these agents, tend to use them in a decontextualized way, or fail to fully comprehend the perspectives of those who do not succeed in school and are eventually marginalized. In this article, we present an overview of Critical Communicative Methodology (hereafter CCM) (Gómez, Puigvert, & Flecha, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>]) and explain how it has been employed successfully to analyse educational inequalities in ways that caused real social transformation.</p> <p>CCM's methodological approach aims to analyse social reality in order to help transform it. To achieve this purpose, CCM is grounded in a communicative perspective of reality, where knowledge is understood as being constructed through interaction and dialogue. Within this approach the object of study is based on the reflections and interpretations of the actors who are experiencing the social reality that needs to be transformed. Researchers incorporate both theories and research-based knowledge into dialogue, and contrast them with the participants' knowledge. Using this methodology, researchers identify both the elements that reproduce inequalities and the elements that transform them by differentiating between the dimensions that are <emph>exclusionary</emph> and those that are <emph>transformative</emph>.</p> <p>Since the early 1990s, CCM has been applied successfully in various research projects coordinated by CREA, the Centre of Research in Theories and Practices that Overcome Inequalities, at the University of Barcelona. These projects, both national and international, including those funded by the European Commission's Research Framework Programmes (WORKALÓ, 2001–2004 and INCLUD-ED, 2006–2011) were instrumental in refining the methodological aspects of CCM, especially in the study of vulnerable groups. CCM was also shaped by intensive theoretical debates between members of CREA and the international scientific community (Beck-Gernsheim, Butler, & Puigvert, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>]; Searle & Soler, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this article, we discuss the theoretical basis of CCM, which is in line with the dialogic turn in social science and includes an interdisciplinary approach. Second, we describe how CCM was implemented in INCLUD-ED and provide an extended description of the project. In particular, we describe data collection techniques and analysis and provide examples to illustrate them. Finally, another section discusses the challenges encountered in using this methodology and the article ends with brief remarks on future uses of CCM.</p> <hd id="AN0083493340-3">Theoretical background</hd> <p>Critical communicative research is a part of what has been identified as the dialogic turn in social sciences. This dialogic shift challenges the modern bureaucratization of institutions, which Habermas ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]) sees as having resulted in the 'systemic colonization of the lifeworld.' The shift begins by positioning dialogue and communication as the basis for understanding and explaining social reality. Habermas introduces a consensus perspective on truth: truth is created through communication and is the product of dialogue within a community of inquirers who are competent to debate a particular question and reach a consensus about their reality, regardless of their socioeconomic status or educational level.</p> <p>Seven postulates summarize the main theoretical stands of CCM: the first one, drawing from Habermas' work (1987) among others, refers to the <emph>universality of language and action</emph>, which establishes that every person has the capacity for language and action, and can use it to communicate and interact. Another postulate is the <emph>absence of interpretative hierarchy</emph> which means that all interpretations that emerge in the research process are equally valued regardless of the social position of the person expressing them. Finally, <emph>equal epistemological level</emph> implies that while researchers bring knowledge from the scientific community, research participants provide knowledge based on their experience, and both types of information are considered equally valid. These postulates are particularly important when trying to achieve egalitarian dialogue between researchers and vulnerable groups in ways which allow for the voices of these groups to contribute both to the reading of their own social reality and to considering ways to transform it.</p> <p>CCM's focus on egalitarian dialogue implies a communicative negotiation between the scientific community and the interpretations of those who experience, for example, the reality of educational marginalization. In other words, researchers assume the responsibility for sharing the accumulated knowledge gathered by social science research and for contrasting it with participants' beliefs and experiences. Flecha ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]) argues that a dialogue is egalitarian 'when it takes different contributions into consideration according to the validity of their reasoning, instead of according to the positions of power held by those who make the contributions' (p. 2). The claims of research participants are granted validity through their reasons and arguments in the same way that researchers' arguments can also be problematized or accepted, rejecting traditional hierarchical evaluations of knowledge.</p> <p>Thus, our use of the term 'egalitarian' in this context reflects the position that research should account for the different forms of knowledge produced by social agents (researchers and social actors) and should use this knowledge to overcome inequalities. We do not deny the obvious power imbalances between researchers and research participants, nor do we ignore the fact that studies and reports are ultimately written and published by academics and researchers. But, in the same way that researchers review previous results and either refute them or confirm them, they might eventually need to review previous assumptions that contradict the experiences and knowledge of research participants.</p> <p>Furthermore, CCM is based on the epistemological position that social science research is the result of dialogue which can lead, through communicative action (Habermas, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref10">13</reflink>]), to the transformation of social structures that perpetuate social and educational inequality. The criteria defining this dialogue refer here to a communicative relationship that seeks to achieve a permanent and non-coercive consensus, one that is not imposed but is achieved communicatively (Gómez, Puigvert, & Flecha, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>]). Promoting egalitarian dialogue means that we focus not on power interactions but dialogic interactions based on validity claims in the process of reaching consensus. Thus, this approach is based on the premise that human beings, capable of language and action, guide the dialogic stance of the expert and the research overall orientation.</p> <p>Moreover, CCM draws on Garfinkel's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref12">11</reflink>]) ethnomethodology in developing a framework for understanding social actors in their context: the postulate of <emph>common sense</emph> is based on the importance of interpretations people make of their social reality and the knowledge they create to transform their contexts. As Garfinkel puts it, people are not cultural dopes. More importantly, the social orientation of CCM is transformative: it seeks to transform the unequal social structures that become a source of dehumanization. Freire's dialogism has been a guiding source for CCM along with Habermas' communicative action. Freire's theory of dialogic action (1970) stresses the role of dialogue as a powerful tool in raising social actors' critical consciousness and in leading to transformation and emancipation. Through dialogue and communication human beings problematize their reality and reflect critically on how they can be empowered to alter oppressive social structures. Freire's work is embedded in CCM, as research participants are perceived as subjects of their own transformation through dialogue and reciprocity with researchers. CCM promotes dialogical procedures, as researchers trust that every participant, particularly those belonging to vulnerable groups, has the capacity to reason. True communication is facilitated by contrasting the participants' experience of their own reality with the knowledge provided by researchers. Far from being a banking concept of research, the human dialogism that takes place in CCM is research-based.</p> <p>CCM's communicative perspective attempts to overcome the typical dichotomy between object and subject, or the division between their research paradigms (objectivist-positivist versus subjectivist-constructivist) by focusing on intersubjectivity and the interaction between social agents as a source of meaning and knowledge. CCM combines objectivist perspectives (e.g. placing emphasis on the accumulated research results of the international scientific community as a source of knowledge) with subjectivist accounts based on the perspectives of research subjects from vulnerable groups. Furthermore, it is defined as <emph>critical</emph> because it is based on social actors' capacity for reflection and self-reflection which can lead to action that can transform their social reality (Gómez et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>]). Thus, by using the term 'critical', CCM implies not only that researchers and participants will consider conditions of social regulation and unequal distribution of power but also that they will make explicit efforts to transform current unequal social relations (Popkewitz, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref14">24</reflink>]). Habermas' work has generated numerous debates and critiques which are mainly directed towards the idealized forms of dialogue that communicative action describes.</p> <p>More specifically, some critics have argued that, though morally admirable, the standards of communicative rationality are not met in everyday civil society and that Habermas' perspective should be more open to the possibility of tension and conflict (Antonio & Kellner, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>]; Flyvbjerg, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref16">7</reflink>]). For theorists like Lyotard ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]), the postmodern condition is characterized by heterogeneity and the search for dissent; this fact makes consensus, or the discourse towards consensus, an outmoded value. Other critics see Habermas' model of deliberative democracy as focusing heavily on achieving legitimacy through rational consensus and not taking into account the centrality of power and antagonism in democratic politics (Mouffe, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]). Finally, for feminist critics, Habermas' theory is blind to gender struggles (Fraser, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>]) and it ignores the fact that power differentials can silence dialogue or lead to a situation where the transformations sought by the victimized are perceived as a loss by the privileged (Welch, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref20">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Habermas ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref21">14</reflink>]) would respond by arguing that the goal of communication is not domination and control but consensus and mutual understanding. He would also argue that postmodernism's rejection of rationality as a totalitarian force has driven us to a pessimistic and disabling view of modern democracy which obscures its capacity for communicative action and transformation.</p> <p>It is important to emphasize, however, that Habermas shares the critique of objective reason with postmodern thought and holds that the theory of communicative action refers to procedural, rather than substantive, rationality (Flyvbjerg, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref22">7</reflink>]). Nonetheless, departing from theorists such as Foucault who emphasize the workings of power, Habermas emphasizes the possibility of social transformation and emancipation. The Foucault/Habermas distinction is often cast as a tension between the real and the ideal or the tension between conflict and consensus (Flyvbjerg, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref23">7</reflink>]); for Foucault, power determines and overwhelms the production of knowledge, but Habermas believes that power can be separated from discourse by following universal 'discourse ethics' (Kelly, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>]). Thus, Habermas places more emphasis on the possibility of social transformation and emancipation (Habermas, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>CCM is not immune to these debates: by developing a research methodology that includes Habermas' notion of communicative action and Freire's dialogic approach, it takes into account the inherent power struggles not only in the subject of study – educational and social inequality – but also in the relationship between researchers and the research participants. We argue that CCM aims to include all voices in social science research and to account for the perspective of vulnerable groups. Thus, rather than being immobilized by the considerable influence of power-related interests, CCM emphasizes solidarity and altruism in research <emph>with</emph> those who have been traditionally disempowered (Gómez et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]). The objective of an <emph>egalitarian</emph> dialogue may indeed be an ideal towards which researchers need to progress. This means that research can strive to be more egalitarian and communicative by developing the necessary methodological arrangements that take into account the voices of socially excluded groups. Unlike much research on social exclusion – which remains locked in sterile critiques of oppressive social structures – the goal of CCM is not only to describe and explain reality but also to identify the elements that can contribute to overcoming them. For example, arguing for a research agenda that would illuminate the specificity of Afro-American oppression, West ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>]) called for a methodology that would analyse the supremacist, microinstitutional mechanisms and logics of exploitation that have kept African Americans subjugated for centuries. He also emphasizes the need to identify counter-hegemonic possibilities that would allow us to imagine a liberatory agenda for social research.</p> <hd id="AN0083493340-4">Implementing CCM: the INCLUD-ED project</hd> <p>'INCLUD-ED: Strategies for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe from Education' is a five-year Integrated Project (2006–2011) in the 6th Framework Programme of the European Commission. It aims to analyse educational strategies that contribute to overcoming inequalities and promoting social cohesion, along with educational strategies that generate social exclusion. INCLUD-ED is the largest (in terms of budget), longest, and most comprehensive research project in Europe which attempts to provide a holistic picture of the relationship between education and social inclusion. With 15 partners from 14 countries in Europe, INCLUD-ED is comprised of seven projects which focus on researching the question of social exclusion and education from different perspectives including the role of social structures, policies, and social agents. Furthermore, even though the role of education is the main focus, INCLUD-ED takes a larger perspective by analysing the relationship between school failure or success in four areas of society: employment opportunities, housing, health, and social and political participation. Finally, at every level of analysis the project pays particular attention to the effects of exclusion on five vulnerable groups: women, youth, migrants, cultural groups, and people with disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0083493340-5">Data collection</hd> <p>Based on the CCM principles outlined above, INCLUD-ED uses communicative techniques for its data collection, including Communicative Daily Life Stories, Communicative Focus Groups, and Communicative Observations. The first technique was the one most widely used in the 26 case studies carried out in successful schools around Europe. Below, we present some examples of the information collected through Communicative Daily Life Stories and we introduce briefly the other two techniques.</p> <p>The objective of Communicative Daily Life Stories is to obtain a reflective narration on the everyday experiences of people who are directly involved in the schools being studied. It is not intended to be a simple biography or an outline of daily activities but a dialogic reflection during which interviewer and interviewee work together to create an understanding of the world and to provide explanations for the problem of social exclusion. The interview process involves a dialectic negotiation between the knowledge brought by the researcher and the life experiences of the participant in the research. Overall, INCLUD-ED used Communicative Daily Life Stories to gather data from students, family members, and members of vulnerable groups (i.e. women, youth, migrants, cultural groups, and people with disabilities).</p> <p>A clear example of how the egalitarian dialogue is created during the process of conducting a Communicative Daily Life Story can be observed in the exchanges with Berta (pseudonym), a mother of two children in a case study school in Spain. This example shows that the conditions for equal dialogue are not a given but need to be created intentionally because ideal situations of communication do not develop immediately. Even after the researcher explained the goals of INCLUD-ED, as well as the goal of the conversation (Communicative Daily Life Story), there were still some challenges. They may be located in the social actor's belief that, not being an expert, he or she has little to contribute to the analysis. This situation emerged particularly in research with vulnerable groups, because they have traditionally been excluded from academic work. In the case of Berta, the researcher was especially aware of this feeling and counteracted this imbalance by indicating her trust in Berta and saying how much Berta's knowledge about the issue is relevant for the research. Berta did not immediately feel that she was in an egalitarian position with the researcher; her previous ideas of what an interview should be about and the roles she and the researcher might play in it differ from what is actually expected in the case of Communicative Daily Life Stories. But the researcher encouraged her to reflect on how her classroom participation changed the role of women in the school; she said that Berta knew more than she did about what happens there, as she had real experience and knowledge that the researcher particularly valued:</p> <p>Yes, yes. They [usually] see you as a mother and that's it. The woman and the mother, the wife and the mother. And of course if they see you moving away from that [role], they value you more. When their little friend or whatever says, 'look your mum teaches me so well, or she is so good at reading that to me, or she's so good at ... I don't know' above all they value it very much when their friends speak well of you, which does not happen with everyone.</p> <p>In this excerpt, Berta reflects on the ways that her support of children's learning inside the classroom added to the traditional role associated with many women from her community. By reflecting on her experience and the topic being studied, Berta interpreted her activities in school as a powerful indication of breaking away from class and gender stereotypes. CCM takes into account the idea that Berta and the interviewer share a common goal: improving school conditions so that children optimize their learning results. This joint reflection was also meant to make Berta aware of the knowledge she held about what was best for her children, about what does and does not work in their education, and about the reasons that may lie behind the success or failure of certain actions. This helped to set the stage for the dialogue and to create the necessary conditions and atmosphere to establish a more egalitarian dialogue with Berta, who was not used to sharing her views about her children's learning process or about her involvement as a volunteer in the classroom. In other words, using Communicative Daily Life Stories, within the framework of CCM, makes it possible to contrast social actors' insights with contributions from the scientific community because social actors and social researchers participate in a process of co-constructing know-ledge through conversation.</p> <p>Another instance that illustrates this effort to create egalitarian dialogue within CCM is the case of Maria, a mother who participated in Interactive Groups (another successful educational action identified in INCLUD-ED). The researcher explained the goals of the project using plain language and familiar expressions and tried to create an appropriate climate for dialogue. It was particularly important to clarify that there was no correct answer, but that both parties have a shared objective: to establish a joint reflection on how Interactive Groups work and what makes a difference in improving children's learning. Although Maria felt insecure at the beginning, the moment she understood that there were no right or wrong answers to the issues being raised, she engaged in a deeper dialogue and reflection with the researcher:</p> <p>It is about the fact that these five or six children at the table are looking at you, they look at you intently and they are attentive to you. They don't get distracted by the others at the other table. It is like being at home with your child at your table and being attentive to your child, it is very similar [but] with four more children, I don't know, it seems they get more.</p> <p>Maria's explanation about classroom group work is that the key is to get children to pay more attention to their learning. Thus, Communicative Daily Life Story became an instance of reflection about her own experience that enabled her to provide explanations about the action's success and children's ability to learn.</p> <p>Communicative Focus Groups are based on the same principles as Communicative Daily Life Stories but involve a larger group of participants who ideally form a small community by being connected in the workplace or through daily social interaction. Communicative Focus Groups differ from the traditional kind in their objective and approach, and in the role of the researcher. Whereas focus groups usually aim at obtaining information from the perspective of the group without trying to reach a consensus, the goal of Communicative Focus Groups is to construct a collective interpretation of what can transform social reality. In other words, the purpose is not only to gain a deeper understanding of social reality but also to look for ways to transform the situation being analysed. The researcher does not remain an impartial moderator but an active participant who contributes to the discussion from the perspective of social science research.</p> <p>Communicative Focus Groups in INCLUD-ED were conducted with students, teachers, family, and community members. The knowledge contributed by the researcher helps to promote a deeper reflection about the reality being discussed, particularly when participants describe obstacles they face in their daily lives or in their community. For example, in one Communicative Focus Group held with parents in a school, the participants discussed obstacles in involving fathers in school activities. Through their reflections they focused on the benefits of scheduling school meetings in a more flexible way and thus talked about ways to transform the current situation:</p> <p>A: Fathers do also come; it's changing a little bit.</p> <p>C: In the majority of cases in this neighbourhood fathers are the ones who have to go out and earn their daily bread and they do not have time to come.</p> <p>D: It is precisely for that reason that we proposed that parents' meetings often be held at eight in the evening so that fathers can also come along, because if we held them at five in the afternoon or in the morning only the mothers would come, and not all of them just some.</p> <p>B: Fathers did not come before.</p> <p>A: Now fathers come more often.</p> <p>The conclusions from these dialogues helped the project to collect information about the elements which increase the participation of families in schools.</p> <p>Finally, Communicative Observations were carried out in schools with the goal of observing how the community participated in the learning process. These spaces included a school board meeting, a general assembly, a space of decision-making, a working group, a classroom, and a training course. The main characteristic we observed in these events is the very rich interactions with different members of the community: students, educators, administrators, relatives, non-governmental organization representatives, and neighbours. The researcher adopted a dialogic stance with the people observed. That means that he or she does not simply observe from a distance and take notes. In Communicative Observations, the researchers constantly interact with participants to understand the meaning of what they do and talk about. They must reach a consensus based on a process of ongoing joint interpretation.</p> <p>Communicative Observations were carried out in several community meetings to decide on the family education programmes that would be organized. The meetings included family members, mostly Roma mothers without significant academic backgrounds, along with practitioners, teachers, and community members. On one such occasion, the discussion was moderated by Pedro, a Roma community leader who facilitated the discussion in a way that allowed everyone to participate. Various people suggested literacy classes, IT classes, and reading groups, among other ideas. The INCLUD-ED researcher was sitting at the table as one more participant. She introduced herself in respect to the discussion and followed the meeting, which was recorded with the prior consent of all participants. Pedro asked her if she could explain the various possibilities for family education activities to be carried out in the school. She contributed to the discussion with what she knew from research. She described <emph>dialogic literary gatherings</emph> as one family education activity where families with no academic background read and discuss classic books such as <emph>The Odyssey</emph>. After reading part of the book they meet at the gathering to share their interpretations and reflections from the text (Flecha, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]). Family members hesitated, doubting their ability to read the classics, but the practitioners were very supportive and encouraged them to do it, holding very high expectations for them. Pedro was also enthusiastic about the proposal and they agreed to organize these gatherings, along with other family education activities.</p> <p>Furthermore, one of the key elements for the success of this methodology is that participants are fully informed about the project before the fieldwork begins. The project's main objectives and the participants' roles in it are explained to them first, as well as the goals being sought with any of the techniques described. This procedure helps to create an atmosphere where participants feel that what is going on is an exchange of ideas and perspectives between people who share a common goal. By reflecting on how their insights can improve student progress in school, participants make a step towards changing their reality. This means that research participants see the project as a process that will improve a particular situation of exclusion instead of a project where researchers simply collect data.</p> <p>A challenge in a project such as this one is that interviewees may tend to pay more attention to problems, obstacles, and difficulties (i.e. the exclusionary dimension) but cannot readily recognize examples of social transformation. As we have pointed out, this is also a characteristic of academic literature, and we believe that it is an obstacle faced by both researchers and research participants who experience exclusion. As Freire ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref29">9</reflink>]) would say, the process of shifting from <emph>denunciation</emph> of dehumanizing and oppressive structures to <emph>annunciation</emph> of liberating practices requires that we all re-educate ourselves in how to read the reality of oppression while believing that we have the capacity to transform it. We believe that INCLUD-ED has managed to foster this process, as this is evident from the results and the impact of the project.</p> <hd id="AN0083493340-6">Data analysis</hd> <p>An important aspect of CCM is the analysis of data through two dimensions: <emph>exclusionary</emph> and <emph>transformative</emph>. This means identifying structural and subjective elements that contribute either to raising barriers or to promoting social inclusion. Those exclusionary or transformative dimensions range from institutional school arrangements and practices to individual attitudes and assumptions. For instance, we analysed data from 20 case studies of successful schools in Europe, which we selected using three criteria: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref30">1</reflink>) they are located in low socioeconomic areas, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref31">2</reflink>) the student population is culturally diverse, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>) students are doing well on national or regional standardized tests, compared to students at other schools with the same characteristics.</p> <p>Data were analysed using a specific coding scheme. The analytical categories were defined based on the research questions and on the literature review. Some of the categories that emerged in the <emph>transformative</emph> dimension were, for instance, <emph>inclusive practices</emph> and <emph>community participation</emph>. <emph>Inclusive practices</emph> were educational strategies developed in school that lead to more inclusive classrooms and schools. <emph>Community participation</emph> practices emphasized connections between families and community members and their linkages with school success. In other words, data were categorized as <emph>transformative</emph> when they included aspects which contribute to improved educational success and social inclusion. On the other hand, the <emph>exclusionary</emph> dimension included reflections, interpretations, and information that represent barriers to achieving educational success and social inclusion. This two-fold analysis made it possible to identify possibilities for change which take into account both the contributions from social science research brought in by the researchers, and the participants' personal knowledge of the situation.</p> <p>For example, in one case study, a primary school in Spain had started to implement inclusive classroom practices two years before the beginning of INCLUD-ED. When reflecting on earlier ways of organizing the classroom, one primary teacher explained that she taught in a traditional way, addressing all the students at once. She pointed out that this form of organization did not allow her to respond to students' individual learning paces, and tended to leave the lower achievers unattended. The following quote serves as an example of the kind of data that we classified as <emph>exclusionary</emph>:</p> <p>You cannot pay attention to all of them. Especially, well, you do the class for the majority, but those poor kids always end up being a bit lost.</p> <p>A passage that was categorized as <emph>transformative</emph> emerged in a Communicative Daily Life Story with a female student in the sixth grade, who reflected on the positive effects she experienced after the traditional form of classroom organization was replaced by a more inclusive one. Now her classroom began to be organised in small heterogeneous groups and volunteers (parents and other community members) came to provide support to each of the groups. This reversed the traditional form of classroom organization, allowing all children a real opportunity for a wider and richer range of interactions with adults and more opportunities to learn through dialogue. The following quote from the student illustrates the transformative dimension:</p> <p>before we had to put up our hand to talk to the teacher and because there was only one and there were a lot of children in the class, she couldn't pay attention to everyone at once. And now, because we are in groups, there are four [volunteers], ... and they help us. Any time we don't know something we ask them for help, and well, she helps us to read. It works quite well.</p> <hd id="AN0083493340-7">Validity and ethical issues</hd> <p>Data triangulation in CCM is ensured through the use of various qualitative and quantitative techniques (Denzin, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]). INCLUD-ED meets validity standards from qualitative research, including credibility, transferability, dependency, and confirmation (Lincoln & Guba, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref34">17</reflink>]; Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref35">18</reflink>]; Maxwell, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]). These also hold that validity reflects an ethical relationship, one that brings together ethics and epistemology, calling their combination a moral trajectory. For example, in the participatory paradigm, validity is defined as 'the ability of the knowledge to become transformative according to the findings of the experiences of the subjects' (Lincoln et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref37">18</reflink>], p. 114).</p> <p>INCLUD-ED promotes a communicative approach because the research team remains in constant dialogue with other researchers, and with members of vulnerable groups and end-users, in order to verify the validity of research findings and raise new questions. The structure of the project includes three groups that facilitate this dialogue: the Advisory Committee, the Panel of Experts, and the Free Task Oriented Groups. In this section, we focus on the work of the Advisory Committee, created for the INCLUD-ED project, as a way to facilitate the communicative organization of research.</p> <p>The Advisory Committee is a consultancy body composed of members of the five vulnerable groups identified by INCLUD-ED: women, cultural minorities, migrants, youth, and people with disabilities. The Advisory Committee members were selected by all partner institutions based on three criteria: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>) they represent a given vulnerable group and are considered to be at risk of social exclusion within that vulnerable group, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>) they do not hold a higher education degree, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>) they have experience in overcoming inequalities through community participation or social and political involvement. Setting up the Advisory Committee presented some challenges because such representatives (people who were representative of their group and did not hold a university degree) are rare. The 10 members that were finally chosen to form the Advisory Committee have access to the INCLUD-ED project results and meet every year with the coordination team to discuss the research. More importantly, they offer recommendations on how the findings can be used so that they have the greatest social and political impact. These recommendations are shared and discussed with all the INCLUD-ED partners and they are integrated into the project.</p> <p>For example, during the Advisory Committee meeting in June 2009, some members argued that the segregation of students in schools had negative effects on their learning. Rosvita, a young Romanian immigrant woman, explained the negative consequences of separating disabled students, even temporarily, from the regular classroom: when they return to the classroom they feel different and they become disconnected from the rest of the group (CREA, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>]). Rosvita's reflections from her own experience corroborated what educational research had already indicated. In this process of co-creating knowledge, arguments from Rosvita and other Advisory Committee members were incorporated into the overall research process and reinforced the legitimacy of the findings.</p> <p>The Advisory Committee has contributed not only to the process of disseminating the INCLUD-ED findings but also to reinforcing the ethical dimension of research. The ongoing dialogue between end-users, members of vulnerable groups, and researchers makes the research process more transparent and increases the possibility that the knowledge produced in INCLUD-ED will be relevant both to practitioners and to those who are socially and educationally excluded (Haydn, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref42">15</reflink>]). Thus, the process of ensuring that researchers are ethically accountable to vulnerable groups under study is embedded within CCM as a central aspect of the research methodology. Finally, CCM fully complies with the Ethical Grid (Seedhouse, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]a, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]b; Stutchbury & Fox, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref45">28</reflink>]) that has been developed as a guide in accounting for the ethical dimension in research.</p> <hd id="AN0083493340-8">The challenges of using CCM</hd> <p>The process of implementing CCM also involves certain challenges because it does not function as social science research has functioned so far. First, CCM requires a level of reflection by the participants, as they are required not only to convey their story but also to consider how and why they have followed a certain path. In some cases, we note an understandable reservation among individuals who have never before been in an interview situation or who may feel that there is a 'right answer' to the questions they are being asked. We recognize that egalitarian dialogue is not immediately possible just because researchers are seeking it: the interview situation is fraught with power imbalances which are especially difficult to overcome when working with members of socially vulnerable groups. Searle and Soler ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>]) argue that most dialogic relationships also include power interactions which derive from the social structure: a boss and his employee may be good friends, but the labour hierarchy still ensures a power inequality. A researcher and a participant in the study may have good intentions about understanding a given situation but there is still a power imbalance because of the social status hierarchy related to how know-ledge is officially and socially qualified as valid. Moreover, participants from vulnerable groups often mistrust social scientists based on their previous experiences of participating in research projects where their voices were poorly interpreted and misused.</p> <p>For all these reasons, we acknowledge that using CCM involves a learning process, both for researchers and participants, on how to create egalitarian dialogue where knowledge is created through an intersubjective process. Making this possible is one of the main challenges of CCM, particularly in a consortium that involves the participation of 15 partners from EU member states. Dealing with this challenge entails taking time to foster trust and confidence among all the research participants: researchers are involved with the communities, they visit the schools and convey to the participants that their intention is not merely data collection but also the transformation of conditions of inequality. Even though not everyone in the INCLUD-ED consortium is involved to the same level, they all share the common orientation: to include all participants' voices, to work from a dialogic approach, and to produce academic knowledge that is relevant to social transformation.</p> <hd id="AN0083493340-9">Final remarks</hd> <p>At the first consortium meeting of INCLUD-ED in December 2006, Ramón Flecha, the project's main researcher, welcomed the team of researchers from 15 partner institutions with the following statement:</p> <p>Right at this moment there are thousands of children in Europe who are not receiving an adequate education. Most of them will drop out of school and will face a life of social exclusion without having an opportunity to return to school or develop the knowledge required to improve their lives. We are here because we believe that something can be done to change this and we hope that the INCLUD-ED project will provide an answer to these questions.</p> <p>Previous research in Europe had demonstrated that CCM can be a critical tool in conducting socially relevant and evidence-based research. INCLUD-ED has pursued this direction in depth, to develop research that takes into account both subjects and systems, social actors and scientific knowledge; and thus provide key results to orient European social policy.</p> <p>CCM was developed as an alternative to traditional methodologies which simply produce data that are either not communicated to the end-users or that remain irrelevant to the lives of those affected by social exclusion. Even more problematic, research on social exclusion may be circulated and consumed amongst academics for the purposes of publications and promotions but fail the most basic standard of social responsibility towards the subjects of study or the goal of social transformation. In this article, we have outlined the main principles of CCM and argued that it is a methodology that can account for the voices of those who are excluded from society and excluded from contributing to the research that supposedly tries to analyse their marginalization. We believe that these forms of exclusion are mutually constitutive as they help to justify the gap between research and practice or the inequalities between different social groups. The transformative goal of the CCM implies that the involvement needed from social actors in order to thoroughly analyse their situation helps to identify alternatives that can lead to its transformation. We have also explained how research which accounts for the participation of socially excluded groups can contribute to social transformation. We believe that the communicative orientation of INCLUD-ED is a methodological alternative that can produce research data which is directly relevant to the process of overcoming social exclusion.</p> <hd id="AN0083493340-10">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who provided critical feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.</p> <ref id="AN0083493340-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref15" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Antonio, R.J. and Kellner, D.1992. Communication, democratization, and modernity: Critical reflections on Habermas and Dewey. Symbolic Interaction, 15: 277–298.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref6" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beck-Gernsheim, E., Butler, J. and Puigvert, L.2003. Women and social transformation, New York: Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref1" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cordingley, P.2008. Research and evidence-informed practice. Focusing on practice and practitioners. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38: 37–52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref41" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> CREA. (2009). Minutes of the 2nd Advisory Committee Meeting. Unpublished manuscript, INCLUD-ED Project, Strategies for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe from Education, 2006–2011, 6th Framework Programme, European Commission.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref33" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Denzin, N.K.1970. The research act in sociology, Chicago: Aldine.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Flecha, R.2000. Sharing words, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref16" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Flyvbjerg, B.1998. Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society?. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 49(2): 210–233.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref19" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Fraser, N.1985. What is critical about critical theory? The case of Habermas and gender. New German Critique, 35: 97–131.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref29" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Freire, P.1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed, New York: Continuum Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner, J. and Pollard, A.2008. Knowledge transformation and impact (editorial). Cambridge Journal of Education, 38: 1–4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garfinkel, H.1967. Studies in ethnomethodology, New York: Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gómez, A., Puigvert, L. and Flecha, R.2011. Critical communicative methodology: Informing real social transformation through research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17: 235–245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Habermas, J.1990. The philosophical discourse of modernity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haydn, T.2009. Responsible research: In defence of measured conclusions and cautious claims (editorial). Cambridge Journal of Education, 39: 403–406.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, M.1994. "Introduction". In Critique and power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas debate, Edited by: Kelly, M.1–13. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G.1985. Naturalistic inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A., & Guba, E.G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In Y.S. Lincoln & N.K. Denzin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.) (pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyotard, J.F.1979. La condition postmoderne: Rapport sur le savoir [The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge], Paris: Minuit.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell, J.1996. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntyre, D.2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35: 357–382.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mouffe, C.1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?. Social Research, 66: 745–758.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pollard, A.2008. Knowledge transformation and impact: TLRP. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38: 5–22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popkewitz, T.S.1990. "Whose future? Whose past? Notes on critical theory and methodology". In The paradigm dialog, Edited by: Guba, E.G.46–66. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Searle, J. and Soler, M.2004. Lenguaje y ciencias sociales [Language and the social sciences], Barcelona: Hipatia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seedhouse, D. (1998a). Ethical grid. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.priory.com/images/ethicgrid.JPG">http://www.priory.com/images/ethicgrid.JPG</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seedhouse, D.1998b. Ethics: The heart of healthcare, Chichester, , UK: Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stutchbury, K. and Fox, A.2009. Ethics in educational research: Introducing a methodological tool for effective ethical analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39: 489–504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Welch, S.1991. "An ethic of solidarity and difference". In Postmodernism, feminism and cultural politics: Redrawing educational boundaries, Edited by: Giroux, H.A.83–99. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, C.1988. "Marxist theory and the specificity of the Afro-American oppression". In Marxism and the interpretation of culture, Edited by: Nelson, C. and Grossberg, L.17–29. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lídia Puigvert; Miranda Christou and John Holford</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref45"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ985967
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Critical Communicative Methodology: Including Vulnerable Voices in Research through Dialogue
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Puigvert%2C+Lidia%22">Puigvert, Lidia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christou%2C+Miranda%22">Christou, Miranda</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holford%2C+John%22">Holford, John</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Cambridge+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>Cambridge Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2012 42(4):513-526.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Justice%22">Social Justice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Epistemology%22">Epistemology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22European+Union%22">European Union</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/0305764X.2012.733341
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0305-764X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article describes how Critical Communicative Methodology (CCM) has been used successfully to analyse educational inequalities in ways that generate real transformation towards social justice. We begin by arguing that educational research today should employ new methodological approaches that can ensure the inclusion of different voices in social science research and the production of knowledge that transforms social exclusion. We then analyse the main epistemological positions of CCM, based on Habermas' communicative action theory, and explain how it was implemented in the European Union-funded INCLUD-ED project. Finally, we illustrate how INCLUD-ED has had a social and political impact and we argue that research "with" vulnerable groups, based on the principles of CCM, can generate social and educational transformation.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 30
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ985967
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ985967
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/0305764X.2012.733341
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 513
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Justice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Epistemology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: European Union
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Critical Communicative Methodology: Including Vulnerable Voices in Research through Dialogue
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Puigvert, Lidia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Christou, Miranda
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Holford, John
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2012
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0305-764X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 42
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Cambridge Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1