Prof. Pepa Series

ON THE DIALECTICS OF TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH

Ruel F. Pepa

I. Introduction
Spontaneous theorizing should be one outstanding capability of academics to fit into the mold of transformative researchers. Academics in this category should therefore be impulsive writers imbued with a serious commitment to the ideal of perennially upgrading the standard of their profession. Transformative research should be considered a vital component of academic life. The whole process of transformative research in the academe is the actual application of the dialectics of research.


II. Research as a Dialectical Process
Research follows a dialectical path to make it meaningful and significant in terms of realism, responsiveness, practicability and effectiveness. Dialectics makes a research study/project transformative. Unless research connects with the principle of dialectics, it will just be a superficial theorizing abstracted from the commitment to make things better. Transformative research therefore starts off with what is actually happening—with an actual state of affairs. Using the components of the Hegelian dialectical process. the actual state of affairs is the thesis characterized by certain material forces making such state of affairs the only acceptable type of thesis. Actual happening, actual state of affairs, actual practice performed by real people in such state of affairs, whatever you want to call it, is the material starting point in an honest-to-goodness research study.

An actual state of affairs becomes the starting point of a research study if and only if it is, or it is the location of, a problematic situation that affects a larger context where such state of affairs is part and parcel of. In this connection, the motivation of a research study is generated from a problematization focused on an actual event rather than on the research study itself. In other words, a research study is aimed at resolving a problem, improving a system, developing a better mindset or having a better understanding of things; not simply a satisfying of a course requirement per se or an institutional requirement just to promote the researcher to a higher position in the hierarchical structure of the institution or to project the image that the institution—which is not really a specialized research institution—is a progressive one, the fact that is has engaged itself in varied and multiple research projects of superficial and trivial impact. A general research climate geared to expanding the frontiers of knowledge and technology

has the defining character of spontaneity and perceptiveness due to a profound concern toward relevant issues or problems of real life. And the persuading influence that draws a researcher to do an investigation or a study of something of significance comes from a sense of immediacy generated in the constancy of a dialectical interaction between the prospective researcher and the issue or problem at hand. Research activity is not an enforced undertaking or an obligatory enterprise artificially created as a superficial form to showcase the message—how contentless and fruitless it may be—that research activity is going on. This type of “research” activity is the prime culprit why so many researches have ended up in uncharted bookshelves engulfed by cobwebs and dust. (Pepa )


III. The Dialectics of Research as Praxis
The dialectics of research is a praxis (Freire) wherein the researcher involves her/himself and participates in the continuous process of reflection on and action in a state of affairs. The state of affairs which is an amalgam of varied experiences is the thesis and the reflection or theorizing done on such state of affairs becomes the antithesis. The recorded outcome produced out of reflection/theorizing—the theoretical outcome—is afterwards brought back to the realm of actual experience—the state of affairs—for two reasons: 1) to test the correctness of the theoretical outcome, and 2) to make the theoretical outcome useful to its intended purposes.

Honest-to-goodness research is inherently regulated by a dialectics that starts off from significant experience and practice, which is thence reflected upon on the theoretical plane that complements programmed investigation and controlled experimentation along the way. The result of such a research completes the dialectics if brought back to experience and practice, which is precisely its objective. For how can the research actually address the problem(s) it purportedly aims to solve, and how can we test the effectiveness of the solution it offers, if such a research is not brought back to experience and practice? (Pepa)

The transformation effected by its application constitutes the synthesis which completes the dialectical process on this level of specific consideration. The process does not however stop here for in the synthesis is created a new thesis. A fresh level of specific consideration is hence thereby created to start a new round of dialectics.

According to the late Brazilian philosopher of education Paulo Freire, this dialectics affirms the significance of human existence:

. . . [M]an is the only one to treat not only his actions but his very self as the object of his reflection; this capacity distinguishes him from the animals, which are unable to separate themselves from their activity and thus are unable to reflect upon it. In this apparently superficial distinction lie the boundaries which delimit the action of each in his life space. Because the animals’ activity is an extension of themselves, the results of that activity are also inseparable from themselves; animals can neither set objectives nor infuse their transformation of nature with any significance beyond itself. Moreover, the “decision” to perform this activity belongs not to them but to their species. . . .
. . . . . . .

In contrast the people — aware of their activity and the world in which they are situated, acting in function of the objectives which they propose, having the seat of their decisions located in themselves and in their relations with the world and with others, infusing the world with their creative presence by means of the transformation they effect upon it — unlike animals, not only live but exist; and their existence is historical. Animals live out their lives on an atemporal, flat, uniform “prop”; humans exist in a world which they are constantly re-creating and transforming. For animals, “here” is only a habitat with which they enter into contact; for people, “here” signifies not merely a physical space, but also an historical space.


IV. Research as a Transformative Endeavor
Research becomes a transformative endeavor through the dialectical process. A research study that is not aimed to transform is an exercise in futility. The task of research to inform is a given. But it cannot really effect transformation unless the person involved in a research study is her/himself likewise transformed in the very act of doing the research and by the effect of its outcome. The involvement factor is very significant in this consideration. It leads to a realization of wisdom that is imbedded deep in the very humanity of the researcher. And s/he can only access that depth if s/he is convinced that what s/he has been doing is of utmost importance to the point of being crucial. Once this level of awareness has been achieved, the usefulness and relevance of the research outcome can at this point outflow to effect transformation in a wider dimension. This whole event which likewise constitutes a dialectics has been explored by a fellow transformative philosopher Yasuhiko Kimura. According to him, three “formations” have to be considered in this transformation model which he calls Triformational Learning Matrix:

In the last several years, I have been teaching a particular model of transformation, which I call the Triformational Learning Matrix. Tri means, of course, three, and so the formational element comprises three formations: information, metaformation, and transformation.

Informational learning is what we normally go through in our educational system and in our own lives. We read books, we listen to people, and we gain knowledge and experience. We develop a more and more comprehensive body of knowledge based on some principle of organization. Metaformation is sometimes called inspiration or intuition; it is a higher form of knowledge that sort of knocks on your door and you become aware of something that is eternal. So when this higher intuition, or metaformation, gets integrated into your own informational learning, you then start to reconfigure the whole context within which you have held the body of knowledge that you already have. And at the same time, you are able to incorporate the higher metaformational knowledge into your own body of knowledge. In this dance between information and metaformation, a transformation takes place. Metaformation is returning to the source of your being, the ground of your being from which you intuit a new form of insight. Then, when that insight is successfully married with the body of knowledge that you already have, transformation takes place. That is my way of understanding transformation.


V. Conclusion
In conclusion let me propose a method of transformative research which consists of a multi-procedural cycle of progression toward transcendence and renewal. The cycle is constituted by the tasks of 1) translation: the propositionalization of a phenomenon/event; 2) hermeneutics/interpretation: the abstracting intellectualization of the propositionalized phenomenon/event; 3) analysis: an investigation into the salient components or mechanics of the interpreted phenomenon/event; 4) pragmatization: the verification of how the analyzed and synthesized mechanics of the phenomenon/event are operationalized in human experience; and 5) evaluation: a propositional assessment of the transformative worth of the phenomenon/event, wherein the transformation could effect a new paradigm of existence.
Transformative research is an act of critically “gliding” along the empirico-rational milieu of the cultural apparatus with an aim to effect transformation of being and strength of character in the stability of a well-defined state of affairs through cognitive enlightenment and intellectual empowerment with the instrumentality of transformative research’s multi-procedural cycle of progression toward transcendence and renewal. Transformative research is a reflective act/ active reflection that looks deeply into the ordered chaos/chaotic order of human flexibility/flexible humanity equipped with all the capability of embracing the persistence of the recurrence of eternity/eternal recurrence in space-time/time-space continuum.

Transformative research as a process of knowledge acquisition shows the five distinct steps involved in the entire process of human knowing. The human being who experiences a state of affairs translates—propositionalizes—and interprets her/his experience of such reality. Propositionalization and interpretation constitute an explanation and hence an understanding of a state of affairs. Henceforth, s/he can then move on to the stages of analysis for the purpose of critiquing such understanding of the world. Then s/he moves on to pragmatization—action—based on the emergent understanding. Pragmatization will afterwards trigger further critiques—evaluation—regarding the merit of the pragmatization. These five steps are done to strengthen our knowledge of a state of affairs.

Human beings under normal circumstances have the natural inclination to aim for clarity. They only rest their case about a state of affairs when they are convinced that an answer has already been arrived at. Their deliberate perception provides them with the reasonable medium that distinguishes knowledge from ignorance. This condition is precisely the reason an interpretation of a state of affairs requires the application of analysis.

Experience provides us with information by way of translation/propositionalization and interpretation. Analysis then attempts to formulate a theory to capture a comprehensible agreement among the propositionalized and interpreted pieces of information.The application of analysis and synthesis intensifies pragmatization to gain further knowledge. Evaluation tries to determine the worth of the structure of the pragmatized event.

A state of affairs which is the subject of a transformative research study becomes better known by way of this multi-procedural cycle of progression toward transcendence and renewal.



REFERENCES

I. Articles:

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed.  http://www.marxists.org/subject/education/freire/pedagogy/ch03.htm
 

Gagey, Pierre-Marie. Handling Incognizance, a challenge for the health system. http://pmgagey.club.fr/NonSavoir-a.htm
 

Kimura, Yasuhiko. “A Philosopher of Change,” in What is Enlightenment?, Issue 22, Fall-Winter 2002. http://www.wie.org/j22/kimura.asp?page=2
 

Pepa, Ruel F. “On the Edge of Chaos in the Age of Kairos” in Aninag, Vol II, NO. 1, ed., Roderick Pineda (Quezon City: Trinity College of Quezon City).

II. Encyclopedia:

AA: Absolute Astronomy.com. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/d/di/dialectic.htm



©Ruel F. Pepa 2005