Through the Reflective Eye of a Pragmatist:Authenticity in Workshops for Co-Constructivism
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2226-9449
Dr Irene Lubbe
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0683-7234
Prof. Isabel Coetzee-Prinsloo
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9671-2990
Abstract
Background
The scholarship of teaching and learning illustrates the dynamic interplay between teaching and research, emphasising the creation, dissemination, and application of knowledge to enhance learning. Within this framework, this methodology-focused practice-based paper examines the conceptualisation of an interactive workshop as both a research methodology and a tool for data generation. Grounded in the pragmatic paradigm, the approach prioritises authenticity, offering a means to navigate the ethical complexities that arise in researcher-participant collaboration.
Objectives
This theoretical practice-based reflective methodological paper focuses on the workshop as a collaborative platform for generating actionable knowledge, considering both its usability and authenticity. By deconstructing the workshop as a research methodology, the discussion explores its potential to yield rich qualitative insights and data while maintaining authenticity. In doing so, we reflect on how workshops can navigate the delicate balance between ethical responsibilities and data integrity within researcher-participant collaboration.
Methods
Adopting a pragmatic perspective, the authors facilitated a three-step, semi-structured, interactive workshop with 19 purposefully selected subject matter experts (critical care nursing specialists) in South Africa. The workshop was designed to foster collaboration, co-creation, and dialogic consensus-building in response to a practical challenge – optimising the use of airway pressure release ventilation for mechanically ventilating adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. To support meaningful engagement, strategies such as silent ideation and argumentative dialectics were incorporated, enabling participants to collectively generate insights and refine their understanding.
Reflections on Outcomes
The workshops illustrated the value of collaborative engagement in producing actionable solutions while maintaining a strong emphasis on authenticity to navigate ethical tensions. A draft clinical pathway emerged from this process, exemplifying the workshop’s potential as a structured platform for co-creation and qualitative inquiry.
Conclusion
Integrating pragmatic assumptions with a commitment to authenticity helped to mediate ethical complexities and uphold the integrity of the reflective inquiry. Positioned as a dynamic and participatory methodology, workshops provide an avenue for addressing complex, practice-based challenges while fostering collaboration and the development of meaningful, actionable outcomes.
The workshop, which involved 19 experienced critical care nurses, resulted in the co-construction of a clinical pathway for airway pressure release ventilation therapy. This outcome not only addressed a local clinical challenge but also validated the workshop’s effectiveness in generating structured, practice-ready solutions through authentic, collaborative engagement.
References
Albertse, J. (2023) Developing a clinical pathway for using the airway
pressure release ventilation mode to mechanically ventilate adult
patients presenting with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Thesis, Department of Nursing Sciences, University of Pretoria,
Pretoria.
Allemang, B., Sitter, K. and Dimitropoulos, G. (2022) Pragmatism as a
paradigm for patient-orientated research. Health Expectations,
(1), pp. 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13384 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13384
Ahmed, S. and Asraf, R.M. (2018) The workshop as a qualitative
research approach: Lessons learnt from a ‘critical thinking
through writing’ workshop. The Turkish Online Journal of Design
Art and Communication, September 2018 Special Edition, pp.
-1510.
Amin, M.E.K., Nørgaard, L.S., Cavaco, A.M., Witry, M.J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A. and Desselle, S.P. (2020) Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16(10), pp. 1472-1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.02.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.02.005
Aspland, E., Gartner, D. and Harper, P. (2021) Clinical pathway modelling: A literature review. Health Systems, 10, pp. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/20476965.2019.1652547 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20476965.2019.1652547
Boersema, M., Van Rensburg, G.H. and Botha, D. (2024) The workshop as a qualitative research method: Exploring innovative approaches in nursing education. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23(1), pp. 1-15.
Busetto, L., Wick, W. and Gumbinger, C. (2020) How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice, 2(14). 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z
Creswell, J.W. & Creswell, J.D. (2023) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 6th ed. London: Sage.
Gansemer-Topf, A.M., McCloud, L.I. and Braxton J.M. (2024) Defining the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). New Directions for Student Services, 2024, pp. 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20502 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20502
Godbold, N., Matthews, K.E.E. and Gannaway D. (2024) Theorising new possibilities for scholarship of teaching and learning and teaching focussed academics. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(1), pp. 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2218809 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2218809
Hu, A. (2024) The workshop as research methodology: Lessons learned from workshops utilized as a participatory research method. In Grindheim, L.T., Borgen, J.S. and Birkland, Å. eds. Metodetilnærminger og prosesuelle design I barnehageforskning. Universitetsforlaget, 121-133. https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215064697-24-07 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215064697-24-07
Kaushik, V. and Walsh, C.A. (2019) Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Social Sciences, 8(9). 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8090255 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8090255
Kelly, L.M. and Cordeiro, M. (2020) Three principles of pragmatism for research on organizational processes. Methodological Innovations, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120937242 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120937242
Miyazaki, K. (2023) Questioning in Bakhtinian dialogic pedagogy and argumentation theory. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 11(3), A42-A64. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2023.544 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2023.544
Ødengaard, E.E., Oen, M. and Birkeland, J. (2023) Success of and barriers to workshop methodology: Experiences from exploration and pedagogical innovation laboratories (EX-PED-LAB). In Wallerstedt, C., Brooks, E., Ødengaard, E.E. and Pramling, N. eds. Methodology for research with early childhood education and care professionals: International perspectives on early childhood and development. Springer: Cham, 57-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14583-4_5
Ørngreen, R. and Levinsen, K. (2017) Workshops as a research methodology. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(1), pp. 70-81.
Peck, B. and Mummery, J. (2022) Hermeneutic constructivism: One ontology for qualitative research. Nursing Inquiry Wiley 32(1), pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12526 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12526
Polit, D.F. and Beck, C.T. (2021) Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Ritter, S.M. and Mostert, N.M. (2018) How to facilitate a brainstorming session: The effect of idea generation techniques and of group brainstorm after individual brainstorm. Creative Industries Journal 11(3). 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2018.1523662 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2018.1523662
Schrum, K. and Mårtensson, K. (2023) Growing SoTL-embracing diversity, messiness, and complexity. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 11, pp. 1-4. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.1
Seckler, E., Regauer, V., Rotter, T, Bauer, P. and Müller, M. (2020) Barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of multi-disciplinary care pathways in primary care: A systematic review. BMC Family Practice, 21(1). 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01179-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01179-w
Shamsuddin, S., Sheikh, A. and Keers, R.N. (2021) Workshops in qualitative research: A conceptual framework for beginners. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211043744 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211043744
Storvang, P., Mortensen, B. and Clarke, A.H. (2018) Using workshops in business research: A framework to diagnose, plan, facilitate and analyze workshops. In Freytag, P., and Young, L., eds. Collaborative research design. Singapore: Springer, 155-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5008-4_7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5008-4_7
Trimarchi, L., Caruso, R., Magon, G., Odone, A. and Arrigoni, C. (2021). Clinical pathways and patient-related outcomes in hospital-based settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Acta Biomed, 92(1). 2 pages. e2021093.
Van Eemeren, F.H. and Van Haaften, T. (2023) The making of argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical view. Argumentation 37, pp. 341-376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09618-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09618-5
Van Haastrecht, M., Brinkhuis, M., Peichl, M., Remmele, B. and Spruit, M. (2023) Embracing trustworthiness and authenticity in the validation of learning analytics systems. LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK 2023), 13-17 March 2023, Arlington. https://doi.org/10.1145/3576050.3576060 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3576050.3576060
Downloads
Article Metrics Graph
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.