Most research to date into the phenomena of meditation has been performed via the vehicle of traditional quantitative empirical analysis. Walsh(1993) asserts that there were more than 1500 publications demonstrating a variety of psychological, physiological and chemical effects of meditation. He states, however, that:

"the variables examined to date, such as heart and respiration rate, have often been relatively objective and gross compared to the subjective and subtle shifts in awareness, emotions,and values that constitute the traditional goals of meditation.................more attention has been paid to heart rate than to heart opening"

(in Scotton,B; Chinen,A; Battista,J p167 &174)

As a relative newcomers to the psychological research field it is perhaps not surprising that the fraternity of meditation researchers, eager for acceptance within the scientific community, have at first chosen those methods most acceptable to traditional science. Recalling, however, Bohm’s (1980) [Meditation p.18] description of meditation as ‘trying to reach the immeasurable’ then, we may rightly ask, how will quantitative analysis measure this? Clearly, within this paradigm, some questions will simply not be asked.

Qualitative methodology has often been defined in contradistinction to the quantitative approach - eg, "words rather than numbers" (Miles&Huberman, 1984). or "any kind of research which produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification" (Strauss&Corbin,1990) McLeod(1994), noting that this reflects, maybe, the possibility that "much qualitative research has been explicitly conducted in opposition to, or in defiance of, the dominant positivist paradigm in psychology and social science." identifies a set of 15 interlocking themes, strategies and values characteristic of most qualitative research (p.77) and goes on to offer a brief definition:

"...a process of systematic inquiry into the meanings which people employ to make sense of their experience and guide their actions"

Here it is the word ‘meaning’ which provides the key to the door opened by qualitative research.

McLeod(1994), describes Co-operative Inquiry as representing:

"a synthesis of all other qualitative methods, in the context of a distinctive philosophical stance concerning the aims and purposes of research"

Reason and Heron(1995) go further when they say:

"While co-operative inquiry overlaps with qualitative and naturalistic research methods, it is also significantly different from them because it invites people to join in the co-creation of knowledge about themselves."

Arising originally out of a critique of the the orthodox positivistic methods, early researchers saw themselves as contributing to a ‘new paradigm’ (Reason&Rowan, 1981) for human inqiry. At the core of this new approach were

a) an acknowledgement that people are self-determining and should be regarded as active co-participants in research rather than as passive subjects.

b) a resolve to carry out research in a way which respects the whole potential for being human: feelings and spiritual dimensions as well as cognitions, behavior and physiology.

c) a recommendation that the propositions or theoretical knowledge expressed in research reports needs to be ‘rooted in and derived from the experiential and practical knowledge of the subjects in the inquiry’ (Reason&Heron 1986)

In "A Layperson’s guide to co-operative inquiry" (App2.4 - external link) Heron(1996) - in a formulation which is very similar to Chinen’s(1996) five concepts of truth [see Transpersonal section] - has this to say about the epistemology of the method.

"Co-operative inquiry involves at least four different kinds of ways of

knowing. We call this an "extended epistemology"- epistemology meaning a theory of how you know, and extended because it reaches beyond the primarily theoretical knowledge of academia. Experiential knowing is through direct face-to-face encounter with person, place or thing; it is knowing through empathy and resonance, and is almost impossible to put into words. Presentational knowing emerges from experiential knowing, and provides the first form of expression by drawing on expressive forms of imagery through story, drawing, sculpture, movement, dance and so on. Propositional knowing"about" something, is knowing through ideas and theories, expressed in informative statements. Practical knowing is knowing "how to" do something and is expressed in a skill, knack or competence."

Whether or not the phrase ‘new paradigm’ is appropriate, it does not mean that, in co-operative inquiry , all the the values of the ‘old paradigm’ should be discarded. In his introduction to a compilation sub-titled ‘developments in new paradigm research’ Reason(1988, p13.) states:

"the old world-view, with it’s fragmented and alienated metaphors, is discarded as we move into a participatory universe. But I think this move can be seen as a synthesis in which, while much is negated and discarded, significant aspects are retained and re-integrated - for what we keep of the old scientific view are the ideals of critical and public knowledge. Indeed the notion of critical subjectivity means that we are more demanding than orthodox science, insisting that valid inquiry is based uon a very high degree of self-knowing,self-reflection and co- operative criticism. Good co-operative inquiry is both whole-heartedly involved and intensely self-critical"

Critical subjectivity

Qualitative researchers, under the influence of postmodern sentiments, have begun to attend to the perspective on which their inquiry is based, seeing that:

"any gaze is filtered through the lens of language, gender, social class, race and ethnicity" (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994, p. 12).

In co-operative inquiry, the co-researchers have to develop a particular form of consciousness which takes into account both the potential benefits and distortions of ‘where they’re coming from’

"Critical subjectivity involves a self-reflexive attention to the ground on which one is standing and thus is very close to what Bateson (1972) describes as Learning III and which Kegan(1994) refers to as fourth order consciousness. " Reason and Heron(1995).

Inquiry then becomes:

"consciousness in the midst of action" (Torbert, 1991 p. 221)

The practice of co-operative Inquiry

The practicalities of conducting co-operative inquiry are easier to describe than to carry out (Reason,1988) Description is enabled by considering four phases :

In Phase One a group of co-researchers come together to explore an agreed

area of human activity. They talk about their interests

and concerns, agree on the focus of their inquiry, and develop a

set of questions or propositions. They agree to undertake some exploratory action or practice, and agree to some means by which they will observe

and record their own and each other's experience.

In Phase Two the group apply their agreed actions in their everyday life and

work: they observe and record the outcomes of their own and each other's behaviour. They may at first simply watch what it is that happens to them so they develop a better understanding of their experience; they may try out new forms of action.

In Phase Three the co-researchers become fully immersed in their experience.

They may deepen into the experience so that superficial understandings are elaborated and developed. Or they may be led away from the original ideas and proposals into new fields, unpredicted action and creative insights. There may be practical crises, they may become enthralled, they may simply forget. They encounter their each other and their world directly, as far as possible without preconception, bracketing off any prejudicial influence of the ideas they started with in phase 1.This phase is in some ways the touchstone of the inquiry method, and is what makes it so very different from conventional research, here people are deeply involved in their own experience so any practical skills or new understandings will grow out of this experience.

The co-researchers then re-assemble to consider their original questions in the light of their experience-this is phase four of the inquiry. As a result they may changetheir questions in some way; or reject them and pose new questions. They

then agree on a second cycle of action and reflection. They may choose to

focus on the same or on different aspects of the inquiry. The group may choose to amend its inquiry procedures, forms of action, information gathering -in the light of experience of the first cycle. (Reason,1988; Heron1996)

Thus, co-operative inquiry proceeds with a number of cycles of action and reflection. A cycle may or may not be ‘provoked’ by a specific ‘proposition’ generated in phase one or, as a result of reflection in phase four. A useful visual metaphor for this manner of generating knowledge is the upward spiral where each cycle of inquiry builds up from the insights gleaned during the previous cycle of inquiry.

Validity

Co-operative inquiry is threatened by unaware projection and consensus collusion.(Reason and Rowan, 1981b, p. 244; Heron, 1988a, pp. 53-55) Unaware projection means that we deceive ourselves. We do this because to inquire carefully and critically into aspects of our experience which we care about is an anxiety-provoking business which stirs up our psychological defences. We then project our anxieties onto the content we are supposed to be studying (Devereaux, 1967) Consensus collusion means that the co-researchers may tacitly band together as a group in defence of their anxieties, so that areas of their experience which challenge their worldview are ignored or not properly explored. There are a variety of validity considerations - expressed in terms of attending to appropriate balance between polarities - which were discussed during the inquiry and appear in the appendix (App3.2.p4.para5 - p6.para3).

Co-operative Inquiry as the appropriate method

The positioning of this researcher, and this researchers’s co-researchers - indeed the concept of co-researcher, which is so comfortably at home both within a peer self-help community such as CCI, and central to the co-operative inquiry method - all these inter-related factors recommend the adoption of the co-operative inquiry method.

Updated 16 June 99
by Martin Wilks