Research tensions and paradigm shifts in action sciences

Orlando Fals-Borda. (2002). In P. Valero & O. Skovsmose (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on mathematics education and society (pp. 1-10).
Copenhagen: Centre for Research in Learning Mathematics.

For him, PAR attempts to challenge power through a radical change in knowledge production. He stated:

We appeared to be involved in a risky mixture of power/ knowledge, for we dared to challenge established ways and rules with heterodox research-and-study techniques in the field, in the classroom and even in the comfort of our armchairs in order to promote changes that are felt necessary both for academia and for society at large. (p. 2)

PAR is a remedy for ineffective analytical procedure in academia and at the same time a tool to pursue social justice for ordinary people in society. From this perspective, he drew attention to three types of tensions that arose in building PAR : (1) theory/practice in determining appropriate safeguards for the application of praxis, (2) in the meaning of the subject/ object and knowledge triad; and 3) in the search for a more satisfactory vision of science, within the context of mathematics education.

Concerning validity, Fals-Borda argued that it has to do with the notions of QUAL and QUAN research. He continued that quantitative measures may be combined with qualitative descriptions. More importantly, he stated:

Validity criteria could be derived from sources other than numerical regressions and correlations. Such alternative guidelines could be drawn by common sense, from inductive/deductive analysis of results obtained in practice through personal involvement in processes, and approved by the considered judgement of local reference groups. (p. 7)

Validity can be sought through self-reflexivity, participants, and other reference groups, as suggested in constructivist approaches as shown in fourth generation evaluation.

Fals-Borda asserted that PAR can bring together diverse knowledge systems--suggesting both QUAL and QUAN--and wrote that is a challenge for intellectual and moral reconstruction. He stated:

Convergence of this type should only be limited by how useful it is in the sociocultural and environmental context that inspired it, and in producing the positive practical results expected of it in the real world. (p. 8)

He noted, "PAR approach is open, plural, practical and interdisciplinary" (p. 9). He continued to stress that:

This open, holistic paradigm of PAR brings together praxis and ethics, academic knowledge and popular wisdom, the professor and the student, the rational and the existential, the regular and the fractal, the qualitative and the quantitative. It breaks down the subject/object dichotomy. It is founded on the democratic pluralist concepts of otherness, service and justice, upholding toleration of diversity and introducing neglected perspectives of culture, gender, popular classes and pluriethnicity into research and teaching activities. (p. 9)