Abstract
Academic researchers tend to be creatures of habit, often relying on tried and tested methods to approach and conduct research studies. However, like many sectors globally, academia was not untouched by the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers, who typically depended on face-to-face interactions and traditional data generation methods, were forced to adapt as national lockdowns and restrictions brought about unprecedented changes. The limitations imposed on research activities were extensive: international travel was suspended, academic conferences were cancelled, and requests for submission extensions of dissertations and theses surged. Many students faced delays in completing their research, and in some cases, studies were abandoned altogether. The closure of schools and higher education institutions created further disruption, as face-to-face interactions between researchers and participants – such as student teachers, practicing teachers, and learners – were entirely prohibited.
These challenges forced postgraduate students to reconsider their methods of data generation. Traditionally, online modes of data generation had been viewed with scepticism, often considered inferior to in-person methods in terms of reliability and richness. However, as the pandemic persisted, these online approaches became not only viable but a necessity for students and researchers. In retrospect, the academic community recognised that data generation methods would need to be more adaptable. This realisation was pivotal in reshaping academic research, particularly in participatory methodologies, where direct engagement and interaction with participants are key.
This article provides an overview of the use of the future creating workshop (FCW) as an online data generation method within a participatory action learning and action research (PALAR) framework. The FCW is a participatory strategy aimed at identifying the common challenges individuals face in a given context, then generating specific visions of what the future should look like, and collaboratively analysing these ideas.
At the time of conducting this study, there was a significant gap in the literature regarding the use of online FCWs for data generation. This article not only contributes to filling this gap but also compares the online and traditional face-to-face modes of delivering the FCW. The findings suggest that while the delivery method does not necessarily affect the outcomes of the workshop, there are clear advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, each of which warrants consideration depending on the research context.
The methodology involved adapting the FCW, which traditionally relies on face-to-face interactions, for an online environment. This transition was facilitated through various digital platforms that enabled real-time collaboration and engagement amongst participants. The process was divided into three phases, as is customary in FCWs: the critical phase, the utopian phase, and the reality phase. The critical phase focuses on identifying and discussing the participants’ challenges, the utopian phase allows them to dream and propose ideal solutions without practical limitations, and the reality phase encourages participants to evaluate and develop concrete actions to address the challenges identified.
In adapting the FCW to an online format, tools such as Google Meet for online discussions and Padlet for collaborative sharing and interaction were used. Photovoice, a participatory research technique in which participants take photographs representing their experiences, was incorporated to allow participants to express their perspectives. Participants uploaded their photographs to Padlet, where they were asked to comment on each other’s photographs. Thereafter, the group discussed the results in online meetups. These visual narratives were then discussed in the virtual workshop environment. By integrating discussions and real-time chat within the applications, participants could engage in reflection, even in a virtual environment.
The key finding revealed that, contrary to initial concerns, participants in the online FCW demonstrated high levels of engagement and produced rich data comparable to that generated in face-to-face settings. One of the main advantages of the online mode was its flexibility. Participants from different geographical regions who had to remain in a specific location during the lockdown were able to interact and rase their concerns. The anonymity furthermore provided participants with a comfortable space where they shared their ideas, experiences and opinions. This was especially evident in the critical phase, where participants were initially hesitant but gradually became more open as they adapted to the digital environment.
However, the disadvantages of the online format were also clear. Building trust with the participants is an essential component of a PALAR approach, and the digital window created some distance between them. This proved challenging in the virtual environment, particularly because the participants did not know one another before the study. Additionally, technical issues such as unstable internet connections and the need for participants to be digitally literate presented logistical challenges that would not typically arise in a traditional, in-person FCW.
In comparing the face-to-face and online delivery modes, the study found that while both methods are viable, they each have distinct strengths. The face-to-face FCW provides a more immediate and immersive experience, fostering deeper connections and trust between the researcher and participants.
In contrast, the online FCW offers flexibility and inclusivity, allowing participants from various locations to engage in the process. It also provides participants with more time for reflection between sessions, as they can add comments at their convenience and join online sessions only when needed. The use of digital tools like Padlet enables ongoing collaboration, even outside formal workshop sessions, fostering continuous engagement.
As the academic community continues to embrace digital tools and online platforms, researchers must be prepared to innovate and adapt their data generation methods to meet the needs of their participants. The success of the online FCW in this study suggests that participatory action research can be effectively conducted in virtual environments, provided that facilitators are comfortable with digital tools and participants receive the necessary support to engage fully in the process.
This article serves as a resource for researchers who are exploring new ways to generate data in an increasingly digital world. It underscores the importance of flexibility and adaptability in research methodologies, particularly in times of crisis. As academia moves forward, the lessons learned from the pandemic will undoubtedly shape the future of participatory research, with online data generation methods becoming a key component of the research landscape.
Keywords: action research; future creating workshop; online data generation; photovoice; student teachers
- This article’s featured image was created by Diva Plavalaguna and obtained from Pexels.