Paper Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Value Mapping: Unmasking Assumptions in Co-Design Research

Sat, April 9, 4:05 to 5:35pm, Convention Center, Floor: Level One, Room 102 B

Abstract

Objectives
Addressing AERA’s focus on “public scholarship” that engages “sustained public inquiry” rather than “trickling down” from professional fields, this poster describes how our collaboration—the California Tinkering Afterschool Network (CTAN)—developed a research agenda prioritizing authentic praxis between researchers and afterschool educators in research-practice partnership. We describe a research tool created to support iterative co-design between people with varying roles across organizations interested in researching and refining afterschool STEM-rich, equity-oriented tinkering/making programs for non-dominant youth.

Theoretical Framework
Design-Based Implementation Research (DBIR) offers a framework for our co-design research by: 1) focusing on practice from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives; 2) committing to iterative, collaborative design; 3) developing theory about implementation through systematic inquiry; and 4) building capacity for sustaining change (Penuel & Fishman, 2011). We draw on Smith’s (1999) work in Decolonizing Methodologies—that challenges traditional rules of classification, framing, and practice embedded in researching and being researched (p. 43)—to further expand DBIR’s reorganization of routines and tools for including practitioner perspectives. In particular, we challenge mechanisms for negotiating and articulating problems of practice that have traditionally adopted researchers’ assumptions and language and given researchers undue power to set the course of investigation.

Methods
This research drew on interpretive participant observation, privileging the “immediate and local meanings of actions, as defined from the actors’ point of view” (Erickson 1986, p. 119), to provide “thick descriptions” (Geertz, 1973) of our co-design process. Data sources were analyzed using social interactional analysis of educational discourse (Bremme & Erickson, 1977; Cazden, 2001) in order to closely examine how participants changed their roles and language over time. Data sources included meeting notes, email exchanges, interviews with Network leaders and staff, audio and video recordings of meetings and collective Professional Developments, and working documents of research plans and fieldnotes shared between researchers and practitioners.

Results
We introduce a tool that addresses the deeply held problem in Western research of shared worldview, language, learning, and context. To combat these challenges, our research team developed what we call “Value Mapping”—a co-design process that transformed DBIR’s iterative “Conjecture Mapping” (Sandoval, 2013) technique into one that intentionally disrupts traditional researcher/practitioner roles by encouraging open conversation on equal-footing about key ideologies, assumptions, and personal values guiding implementation of tinkering afterschool programs, professional development activities, and sustainability/scale. In this paper we describe how we: 1) developed a shared vocabulary around pedagogy and learning; 2) returned to and edited the Value Map on a regular basis; 3) used the Value Map for continuous reexamination of research questions/codes and for improving practice in every program; and 4) made the research process transparent for the entire Network.

Significance of This Work
This paper offers valuable insight into the respectful co-design of researcher-practitioner projects focused on equity in informal learning environments for non-dominant youth in low-income communities. The Value Map became a shared, but living and evolving document used as a tool to analyze data, re-establish shared understanding, and contest claims within the research study.

Authors