Through the Reflective Eye of a Pragmatist:Authenticity in Workshops for Co-Constructivism

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.