Co-operative inquiry: Qualitative methodology transforming research ‘about’ to research ‘with’ people

Abstract

Co-operative inquiry, pioneered by Heron and Reason, is a qualitative, participatory methodology that powerfully transforms research from inquiring about people to inquiring with people. Contemporary qualitative research is increasingly trending from studying others to engaging all participants in research processes as equal collaborators. Consequently, many qualitative researchers are looking to participatory methodologies such as co-operative inquiry to create authentic research partnerships between researchers, professional practitioners and people with lived experience. This methodology engages participants in the entire research process as co-researchers, co-inquirers, co-participants and co-authors, generating new knowledge by analysing rich understandings of people and their experiences. This article analyses and self-evaluates four co-operative inquiries. They demonstrate the utility, accessibility and knowledge base of the methodology, its ethical strengths, and how it is particularly appropriate for fostering co-design and co-production by eliciting varied and broad perspectives regarding complex phenomena.

Introduction

Co-operative inquiry is a collaborative, participatory approach to generating knowledge. The process embodies principles that align with co-design and co-production, bringing the voices of those not often heard into academic conversations. It enables marginal, and hence original fields of inquiry, to be explored.

This article analyses the experiences of an international community of practice-based researchers who engage this unique qualitative research methodology for pedagogical research with diverse populations and fields, demonstrating its application and utility. The authors drew on their collective experience as practice-based researchers and educators to address the question: Based on the authors’ experiences, what is the utility of the co-operative inquiry methodology?

After outlining the value and ethical strengths of the approach, some examples are offered to illustrate how co-operative inquiry enacts collaborative practice-based research. Specifically, this article aims to explain the co-operative inquiry methodology within teaching and learning by using four completed inquiries, bringing together international and national perspectives. These inquiries explore teaching mental health social work (Whitaker et al., 2022a), undertaking a Higher Degree Research thesis by publication (Short, 2021), a social work student-led inquiry during COVID-19 (Lomas et al., 2022) and critically examining workplace learning (Short et al., 2022). These examples demonstrate how the approach allows unique and different conversations to occur, extending and enriching the extant literature regarding the research process. The article also introduces an international network or community of practice specialising in co-operative inquiry collaborations.

Introducing the International Network of Co-operative Inquirers (INCInq)

The International Network of Co-operative Inquirers (INCInq), 2021 is a group of individuals from industry and academia collaborating to investigate a range of topics in the social sciences and health fields by writing with people rather than about them. The group uses a qualitative participatory research approach – co-operative inquiry – to co-design and co-produce projects, translate practice wisdom into theory, and to generate new knowledge and unique perspectives. A co-operative inquiry engages different and diverse ideas, facilitating the development, capturing and documentation of creative thinking. Critical reflection is embraced and applied to the generation of knowledge.

Co-operative inquiry was pioneered by Heron and Reason (2008) in the 1970s. The INCInq group honour, apply and extend the ontological, epistemological and foundational principles of research that they proposed. Specifically, the principles of collaborative rather than competitive processes; research with, rather than about people; recognition that contributions of co-researchers may vary throughout the process; and valuing all contributions and knowledge types (Howard and Thomas-Hughes, 2021). This article draws on the development of the methodology and its application across various research projects by members of INCInq.

INCInq members value the capacity of co-operative inquiry to generate new epistemologies. Each inquiry seeks to grow research skills collaboratively and to expand the professional and theoretical knowledge base through connections between community, industry, practitioners and academia. The phases of the co-operative inquiry process simultaneously provide qualitative rigour and structure to knowledge generation through the collecting of collaborative research experiences and the writing process. Consistent with the principle of social justice and an egalitarian approach, the authorship of an INCInq inquiry is collectively negotiated and informed by the level of contribution (INCInq, 2021).

Participatory methodologies and goodness-of-fit in the social sciences and health

The purpose of co-operative inquiry is to facilitate ‘[p]ractical knowing in the service of human flourishing’ (Raelin, 1999: 121). For these purposes, co-operative inquiry has many strengths: it can be utilised in a variety of research settings; can provide an accessible and supported entry to research; and promotes an open process to research where power is shared, the principle of social justice is upheld, and inclusion and diversity of thinking are embraced (Reason, 1996). Each inquiry has the potential to not only honour experiences, generate data, analysis, conclusions and knowledge, but to spark new inquiries arising from the participative and reflective processes.

Process is a key element of co-operative inquiry research and is considered as important as the output or outcome of an inquiry. Participatory methodologies have a unique capacity to offer inclusive and transparent processes for developing knowledge by actively including those with direct knowledge or experience of a problem (Baldwin, 2012; Godden, 2016; Heron and Reason, 2008). This inclusive and participatory quality is particularly useful in the social sciences and health where multiple approaches are engaged, including critical realism, relativist, constructivist and interpretivist perspectives that inform inquiries into human experiences, relationships and meaning-making. As a methodology, co-operative inquiry's strong process-focus supports and builds knowledge through participatory processes and fosters communities of practice. As such, co-operative inquiry promotes co-design and co-production and offers a counterpoint to traditional approaches to research.

The co-design features of co-operative inquiry have multiple advantages. Benefits ascribed to co-design include better: selection of research topic areas; choice of research questions; and design of materials (Camden et al., 2015; Di Lorito et al., 2018; Manafo et al., 2018; Puts et al., 2017). Further, the review of co-design research found that the effective implementation of processes of research co-design has the potential to reduce a misalignment between aims of the researchers and the self-perceived needs of end-users of services and research. This can produce ‘substantial positive impacts, from improving health research processes and outcomes, to improving the function of health systems and the societies that depend on them’ (Slattery et al., 2020: 7).

Currently, findings of completed co-operative inquiries investigating social phenomena dominate the extant literature regarding this methodology (e.g. Molloy and Phelan, 2022). Comparatively, there appears to be less scholarly focus on the wide-ranging utility and ethics of this methodology, for example, in social work, social sciences and health and humanities contexts. Social work and nursing provide examples of the practical application of co-operative inquiry methodologies and their alignment with the ethical principles of their disciplines. The co-operative inquiry approach is consistent with the expectation that social science and health researchers utilise methodologies that reflect their disciplines’ ethical base. Social work research, as an example, is expected to embody ethical principles that prioritise social justice, respect for persons and professional integrity in their work (Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW), 2020a; International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), 2014). This is particularly important when working with populations described as vulnerable and marginalised. Nursing, as another example, shares similar ethical principles to social work, particularly public well-being and benefit (Short et al., 2021).

Co-operative inquiry's principle of ‘research with’ rather than ‘about’ people (Baldwin, 2002; Heron and Reason, 2008; Reason and Heron, n.d.), aligns with the ethical foundations of many professions, including social work. This contrasts with research methodologies that tend towards researcher ownership and control. Approaches where researchers hold control may leave participants powerless in the process regarding the use of their own information and the outcomes of the research (Brechin, 1993: 73). Due to their ethical basis and considerations of power (Aadam & Petrakis, 2020), more inclusive and participatory research processes have the potential to identify and build new knowledge not otherwise available through more traditional research approaches.

As a form of participatory action research, co-operative inquiry has been applied when researching local, national, international and global issues (Short et al., 2021; Reason, 1999; Reason & Bradbury, 2008). This participatory approach to research has been noted to be particularly promising and/or beneficial for research in the areas of holistic practice in medicine (Heron and Reason, 1985), mental health nursing (Hummelvoll and Severinsson, 2005), inter-professional practice (Charles and Glennie, 2002), management practice (McArdle, 2002; Raelin et al., 1999) and professional and organisational practice in social welfare (Baldwin, 2002). While previously utilised in these professional contexts, this does not limit the potential applicability for research in other professional contexts or across other disciplines. Notably, co-operative inquiry is increasingly being applied by social workers and nurses as a research methodology (Duncombe et al., 2020; Molloy and Phelan, 2022). Studies undertaken by members of INCInq have primarily focused on topics relevant to social work.

Further, this inclusive methodology can contribute to the uptake of co-design and co-production already undertaken by clinicians, community workers and academic partners engaged with service-users and people with a lived and living experience of ill-health. Co-design can involve engaging with people using services to gain their perspectives and understand their priorities for service development and enhancement (Chisholm & Petrakis, 2020; Petrakis et al., 2014a). Co-production aims to increase participation of a broad range of stakeholders and deeply engage service-users as active participants throughout the research process. Active power-sharing in decision-making informs what and how to research, what is learned and how it is applied (Petrakis et al., 2014b). Yet, in reviewing research co-design approaches and effectiveness in health, Slattery et al. (2020: 1), noted that ‘[r]esearch co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail’. This paper aims to partially address this shortcoming via the description and self-evaluation of four case studies, presented further below.

Engaging with the literature

The origins of co-operative inquiry can be traced to Heron (1996), and Heron and Reason (1997), who introduced the methodology and outlined the participatory nature of the paradigm of inquiry. These authors describe co-operative inquiry as

a form of second person action research in which all participants work together in an inquiry group as co-researchers and as co-subjects. Everyone is engaged in the design and management of the inquiry; everyone gets into the experience and action that is being explored; everyone is involved in making sense and drawing conclusions; thus everyone involved can take initiative and exert influence on the process. This is not research on people or about people, but research with people. (Heron and Reason, 2008: 366)

Further, Reason (1999: 209) describes the process as: ‘[A] systematic approach to developing understanding and action’, noting that ‘while every group is different, each one can be seen as engaged in cycles of action and reflection, each made up of four phases’.

Phase 1 involves a group of people with a common interest or question joining together as ‘co-researchers’ to reach agreement on an issue or topic to explore. The group agrees to ‘undertake some action, some practice, which will contribute to this exploration, and agrees to some set of procedures by which they will observe and record their own and each other's experience’ (Reason, 1999: 209). Phase 2 involves applying actions observed from everyday life and practice and recording observations of self and each other. Phase 3 involves immersing oneself in the issue or topic and the cycles of discussion. Phase 4 involves re-visiting the initial topic, issue or question of the inquiry in light of what has been discovered or learned by group members and through relevant interactions to consolidate findings and research outcomes (Reason, 1999: 210).

A co-operative inquiry approach is associated with four different knowledge types (Oates, 2002: 34): a) individual practical knowledge related to the process of reflection and available for future use; b) first-hand experiential knowledge of the co-operative inquiry process; c) presentational knowledge gained through recounting stories, events and observations in an organisational context and d) propositional knowledge related to the topic of focus. These gains illustrate the transformational potential of co-operative inquiry whereby participants learn as they generate new knowledge. Transformational learning involves changing worldviews through experience and reflection leading to the creation of new individual and collective insights and perspectives (Calleja, 2014; Mezirow, 1997; Taylor, 2007). The co-operative inquiry process focuses on reflection, collaboration and partnership in ways that promote collective transformational learning. The process is generally long term (Raelin, 1999: 121) and its scope for change ranges from personal and cultural to organisational and institutional (Raelin, 1999). Drawing on Reason (1988: 221–2), Oates (2002: 28) highlights the broad utility of co-operative inquiry and its multi-purposefulness ranging from the ‘development of professional practice’ to the ‘liberation of disadvantaged groups’ and the ‘exploration of human experience’ and can focus on ‘Institutional change and development’ and the ‘Development of theory’.

Epistemologically, co-operative inquiry is one of ‘[c]ritical subjectivity in participatory transaction’ aimed at ‘co-created findings’ that align with multiple worldviews (Raelin, 1999: 121). Co-researchers engage in a transformative process of collective learning about the subjective and objective phenomena (Baldwin, 2002). Co-operative inquiry honours subjective and objective worldviews or approaches and is marked by a philosophical perspective that embodies a ‘participative world view, emphasising a subjective–objective reality’ (Raelin, 1999: 121). These participatory qualities enable the methodology to draw upon knowledge gleaned through collaboration and to discern differences in approaches and their distinguishing features (Raelin et al., 1999). Discursively, co-operative inquiry seeks to balance hierarchy with co-operation and autonomy through dialogue between participants as co-researchers and co-subjects (Raelin, 1999: 121).

Epistemically, there are arguments for co-operative inquiry that validates a productive tension between researchers’ engagement with notions of objectivity and subjectivity. Here, Oates (2002: 28) draws on Heron (1996: 20–21) to propose that ‘propositions about human experience are of questionable validity if they are not grounded in the researchers’ experience’, claiming that researchers’ direct experience as co-subjects lends rigour to their insights. Similarly, Baldwin (2002: 223) argues that co-operative inquiry ‘locates the meaning of experience with those involved rather than the researcher’. As researchers can only approximate the human condition through embodiment, joint participation and dialogue with those who are similarly engaged and rather than assuming a position of exteriority, allows researchers to become more in tune with the interplay between objective realities and subjective states in relation to these external forms (Oates, 2002).

Further, co-operative inquiry is characterised by two forms of participation: political and epistemic (Oates, 2002). The former refers to the participants’ ability to influence the decision-making processes that affect them, and the latter concerns the relationship between the knower and the known (Oates, 2002). Engaging with Heron's (1996) scholarship, Oates (2002) espouses the critical function of the political and epistemic aspects of co-operative inquiry. Politically, participation provides people with a vehicle for influencing decisions on the process and outcomes of research related to them and their knowledge and offers an outlet for imprinting participants’ personal values and preferences upon the research design. Epistemically, participatory research powerfully counters the objectifying tendencies of outsider experts and the inescapable biases of single authorship through an emphasis on participants’ self-representation in the research process and conclusions. These two aspects reinforce one another and the emancipatory potential of co-operative inquiry.

There are many ways a participatory approach is ensured. One example is that a co-operative inquiry can be guided by a group appointed facilitator who initiates and guides the inquiry process, ensuring everyone's voice is heard. Alternatively, the process can be structured to facilitate the emergence of co-operative connections that assign group-based initiative and decision-making (Raelin, 1999). Neither of these approaches are rigid. Facilitation may shift over time and be shared across the group.

Noted challenges exist in undertaking a co-operative inquiry. Ethically, discomfort or risk could emerge in relation to the exploration of participants’ situation and professional practices (Raelin, 1999). However, being a co-researcher and co-author with the power over what is shared can effectively counter this risk. Within organisations, there is a risk of deviating from the process if participants choose not to overtly confront organisational norms and culture (Raelin, 1999: 121). Another challenge is presented by group think and interpersonal relationships in the inquiry group, which may impact the inquiry process and undermine the shared responsibility for effective collaboration (Short and Healy, 2017). However, being a co-inquirer with the ability to prompt critical reflection and reflexive thinking by an inquiry group on an inquiry topic can help address issues around process and group think. Similarly, the research process seeks to draw out a range of diverse perspectives rather than developing consensus which also reduces potential for group think.

Illustrating co-operative inquiry: Introducing four case studies

The following four case studies illustrate how experienced researchers, a PhD candidate, and people new to research, including students and practitioners, utilised the methodology. Each of the following case studies use co-operative inquiry differently, tailoring the methodology according to the research question and participants. These case studies highlight the diversity of its application and hence its broad utility. Consistent across the case studies is a focus on research as a participative and inclusive process that values experience and practice wisdom in creating new understandings and knowledge.

Illustrative case study 1: A mental health project

Introduction

The United Nations Special Rapporteur recommended a shift to rights-based approaches and to addressing the power imbalance in mental health policies and services (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 2017), at the same time as Australia has seen a burgeoning of private social work practice. Such developments invite questions about the scope of mental health social work curricula and pedagogy. However, opportunities for benchmarking between universities and collaborative development of mental health social work curricula are limited.

This research aimed to investigate curricula enabling transformation of practice in this field (Whitaker et al., 2021). In the initial phases, the study focused on understanding how curricula might be positioned to prepare students to make a current and relevant social work contribution to mental health. The first step was to establish the purpose and priorities of the pedagogy.

Engaging others – Participatory process

Four mental health social work educators from three Australian universities, collaborated to examine the scope of the ‘Psychosocial Health and Wellbeing across the Lifespan – required curricula’ detailed in Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation Standards 2020 (AASW, 2020b; Whitaker et al., 2023). By collectively and critically reflecting on the nature of the emerging mental health social work practice, this research aimed to progress constructive alignment (Biggs and Tang, 2007) between current and emerging mental health social work practice and curricula. The selection of a collaborative method for this research was deliberate. The co-operative inquiry methodology helped neutralise the competitive relationships that are promoted between academic colleagues and institutions. The methodology also fostered processes that are consistent with social work values.

Research outcomes

Co-operative inquiry provided an opportunity to reflect on how our considerable collective experience and knowledge – over 100 years as mental health social work practitioners and educators – influences our pedagogy and curricula. This approach facilitated collective critical reflection on mental health social work practice, curricula and pedagogy (Fook, 2002). Additionally, these conversations provided a supportive environment to voice personal and professional passions for social work practice in an otherwise isolated academic experience. Rather than developing pedagogical theory, the findings highlighted the need for curricula to develop practices that promote social justice with people who live with less prevalent disorders – including diagnoses of schizophrenia, personality disorders and bipolar disorder – while addressing multiple agendas.

Co-writing

Consistent with the principles of co-operative inquiry, as co-authors, co-researchers and co-subjects (Reason and Heron, 2013), the researchers fostered collaborative relationships across participating universities. In reflecting on this process, it is evident that accuracy and clarity were reinforced through debate, while fluency and coherence were best achieved through the collective writing process. As each participant was a subject and an author this project was considered nil to negligible risk and thereby ethics approval was not required.

Challenges associated with utilising co-operative inquiry in this research

The challenges with this inquiry were twofold. The interests bringing us together as a group were broad, consequently, the research could have floundered in the possibilities. Further, as the co-participants were experienced in using other research methods and employed as academics, investing time in meeting repeatedly over several months, exploring an unfamiliar method raised questions of return on investment. Could it have been more efficient to focus on methods already known to the researchers and/or divide up writing tasks quickly for a more expedient though less collaborative approach?

Illustrative case study 2: Utilising co-operative inquiry in a PhD by publication

Introduction

Co-operative inquiry generates new insights about a field of inquiry, making it a useful methodological option for a doctoral dissertation (Short, 2021; Howard, 2009), which requires the generation of original knowledge (Dunleavy, 2003: 27). The participatory nature of co-operative inquiry has the capacity to: co-design and co-produce projects; engage the necessary original thinking of a doctoral dissertation; respectfully capture the associated rich data; be flexible in making new connections between a spectrum of thinking about a field; and to integrate emic (insider) with etic (outsider) epistemologies in innovative ways (Short, 2021; Buckley et al., 2014). Short's (2021) PhD thesis aimed to develop novel thinking regarding rural Anglican Church engagements with people living with disabilities and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and considered a range of methodologies. The emphasis on engagement in the research question necessitated a methodology that was ‘participatory, collaborative, empowering of all involved and person-centred’ (Short, 2021: 51; Heron and Reason, 2001). As a social worker, Short was attracted to co-operative inquiry due to its egalitarian nature in ensuring all research participants were equally heard and respected in all phases of the inquiry (Short and Healy, 2017).

Engaging others – Participatory process

Short's (2021) PhD comprised five publications, four of which were jointly authored. The inclusion in the thesis of three co-authored articles with people who have the lived experience helped ensure that their voices were heard and respected.

The methodology chapter in the PhD contains a book chapter, which is a collaborative piece reviewing co-operative inquiry and its four phases (Short, 2021). In this book chapter, Short and Healy (2017) describe the functionality of co-operative inquiry in: engaging participants as equal co-researchers and co-authors; power-sharing; upholding of everyone's voices; and adaptability to researching different social phenomena. Three of the four journal articles listed in the thesis portfolio chapters were co-operative inquiries. Short and people with the lived experience comprised the inquiry groups and they mirrored these participatory characteristics (Short et al., 2017; Tillotson et al., 2017; Short et al., 2018).

Research outcomes – Creating and advancing theory

The three co-operative inquiry publications were Q1 peer-reviewed journal articles, each presenting a different completed co-operative inquiry. All three journal articles generated new perceptions and/or knowledge. For example, the journal article by co-authors and co-participants Nicole Tillotson, Monica Short, Cass Hearn (social workers) Janice Ollerton (sociologist); and Bonita Sawatzky (medicine) explored in a unique way the complex field of religion and disability (Short et al. 2017; Tillotson et al., 2017). This article presented the author's personal narratives and insights into the role of faith for people living with disabilities who are Christians, and for their families and friends. Three co-authors, Tillotson, Hearn and Sawatzky identify as living with disabilities. Further, the inquiry explored the lived experience of the values clash between the medical model of disability and the motivating power of faith. In this article, the authors actively challenged contemporary ableist and disablist perceptions that devalue the spiritual needs of people living with a disability.

Co-writing

The three inquiries comprised small groups of experienced professionals with personal interest in the field. Co-operative inquiry provided the structure for co-design and co-production. In total, 12 people were involved with the three articles, and all were co-authors, co-participants, co-subjects, co-researchers and co-inquirers. The projects were deemed nil to negligible risk, and ethics approval was not required for these three journal articles.

Challenges associated with utilising co-operative inquiry in this PhD thesis

Unbeknown to those around her, utilising co-operative inquiry in her PhD created an unexpected internal tension for Short. At the time, Short was constantly thinking about how the overall thesis would progress and be presented. However, the inquiries generated thinking and directions regarding the field and the thesis structure that Author had not considered. Short felt challenged and went through an internal struggle: would she impose some of her ideas? She had to engage with the discomfort and reconcile her thinking with the new knowledge and the sharing of power. Short decided to follow the new directions and transformed her thinking regarding how to present the thesis. This meant revisiting and modifying her writing approach, which extended the writing phase of the thesis.

Illustrative case study 3: A student-led, rural-focussed inquiry

Introduction

This project sought to explore student work-integrated learning (placement) experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic while enhancing student exposure to participative research (Lomas et al., 2022). The pandemic disrupted social work student placements (McFadden et al., 2020; Henrickson, 2020; Zegward et al., 2020) including cancellation of direct service delivery placements, with research or project-based placements offered as alternative learning experiences. In this context and with the capacity of research and project-based placements to offer experiences to appropriately prepare students for future practice being increasingly recognised (Morley and Clarke, 2020), social work academics from three different regional Australian universities engaged students in remote research-based online placements.

While research placements are recognised as providing useful experience, student perspectives have not been explored in depth. In this inquiry, students and supervisors worked together to critically analyse the benefits and challenges of online remote research-based placements. As the students were working primarily from home in isolated settings, this inquiry explored their placement experiences and the benefits of linking these students with other students from different regional universities in similar situations.

Engaging others – Participatory process

Four students were invited to lead an inquiry focussing on their placement experiences during COVID-19, with mentoring provided by the academics supporting their placements and a research fellow. The University Centre for Rural Health, University of Sydney, and Charles Sturt University funded and supported this process in several ways: students were provided information and access to online training workshops on co-operative inquiry, academic writing, referencing and academic integrity, which allowed them to consider their involvement (INCInq, 2022).

Once the details were agreed, regular mentoring sessions were scheduled where the students met with academics in a mentoring session for one hour and then again as a student-only team for a second hour. Students also meet at other times to increase opportunities for interaction at various points in the inquiry process. Throughout the project the students focussed on publicly available documents about the field in addition to their own experiences. They communicated via email, phone, videoconference and shared electronic documents as required. Given the relatively short length of the student placements (max. 600 h), the student-led inquiry was conducted in a comparatively short time frame for a co-operative inquiry. This shorter time frame required clarity at each of the four Inquiry phases and rapid transitions between each phase.

Ethical considerations

Students were advised that this was an optional critical reflection activity, that they would lead and control the inquiry and that it would not be part of the assessable elements of their placement. Given the inquiry involved students, advice regarding ethics was sought. With the students as equal participant–researchers and authors and the focus on discussing the extant literature, this was deemed a nil to negligible risk activity and ethics approval was not required. Nonetheless, to ensure a genuine student-led process and equality as co-researchers, issues of ethics and power were regularly re-visited by the research group throughout the project. At the end of the project, student's feedback confirmed their experience as valued and equal members in the inquiry process with their voice given primacy.

Research outcomes – Evaluating and validating

The topic the students chose and examined was Experiences of social work students undertaking a remote research-based placement during a global pandemic (Lomas et al., 2022). The students engaged in ongoing reflection through the inquiry, supported by their literature review. This inquiry identified that, contrary to literature, which privileged direct service delivery placements, research-based placement was a valid transformative practice-learning experience enabling the development of professional skills and identity. Beyond insights into the topic, the students gained knowledge and confidence in transferable skills in research, communication and group work as well as experience of participatory research processes.

One issue was the different placement timing and students’ capacity to continue a high level of engagement at the completion of their placement period. While meeting attendance decreased with time as placements came to an end, the online process enabled a continued engagement to project completion. A further issue was that as students were at different points in their studies, this impacted on group dynamics including the need for group facilitation to support collaborative and equitable engagement. Despite these issues, student feedback confirmed the value of the learning experience as a social work placement, to apply social work values in practice and to develop academic skills and knowledge of research design and dissemination. In particular, students described the participatory process as an experience of being engaged as equals and having power in the determination of findings and dissemination. In addition to publication, the success of this project supported the achievement of grant funding for the implementation of further student-led co-operative inquiry projects with the participant group being expanded to include students from other countries.

Co-writing

The students were fully active in the process of co-writing through the exercise of developing a conference presentation and an article for publication. Consistent with the inquiry process, the students led the writing with the academics as co-authors. The academics provided mentoring throughout and a research fellow provided editorial support. The article was submitted to and published by a peer-reviewed Q1 journal. It is uncommon for student voices to be heard in literature. The published article demonstrates that this methodology can create a space for voices to be heard that are otherwise silenced or only portrayed by expert others. The article, therefore, made a unique and valuable contribution to the knowledge base regarding work-integrated learning.

Challenges associated with utilising co-operative inquiry in this research

Undertaking a placement during COVID-19 was difficult. When the authors came together to work on the inquiry, they found it easy to ‘distract each other’ and talk about external events ‘rather than focusing on the project’ (Lomas et al., 2022: 14). Co-operative inquiry gives people the power to redirect the conversations, risking exploring in detail external themes not related to the inquiry topic. The students identified this as a challenge during the early days of COVID-19 and they addressed it by regularly revisiting the research question and resuming their inquiry conversation (Lomas et al., 2022: 14).

Illustrative case study 4 – An international collaboration

Introduction

Many tertiary educational institutions training health and social science professionals have work-integrated learning subjects embedded in their degree programs. Internationally, the increasing shortages of opportunities for work-integrated learning is a common concern (Short et al., 2021). Consequently, a co-operative inquiry project was undertaken by a group of educators teaching, or with an interest in, work-integrated learning subjects or co-ordinating and arranging placements, alongside industry representatives hosting work-integrated learning placements (Short et al., 2022). The inquiry included people from social work, health science, geography, psychology, philosophy and education backgrounds and focussed on work-integrated learning as a component of social work. Inquirers from four countries participated in this inquiry, including novice researchers. The group examined innovative approaches and practices in work-integrated learning. As the inquiry period occurred during natural disasters and COVID-19, the issue of innovation in this area was of even greater importance than initially predicted. This methodology was adaptable and enabled input of experiences from relevant contemporary and emerging circumstances.

Engaging others – Participatory process

The inquiry involved 16 participant–researchers from across Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand. Narrative therapy methods were applied in the data collection and immersion phases of the inquiry process. A case study from each country was examined and critically reflected on through this process. Regular meetings were scheduled at a time most suitable for all participants. Technology was used to support this international project, including shared documents allowing live co-writing, and recorded videoconference meetings with electronic transcripts. Links were uploaded to the primary document, and notes were taken during the meeting. This ensured that participation was not affected by the ability to attend a meeting. Participant–researchers were also able to review and include written reflections or relevant resources within the shared document at any time during the research process. Contributions occurring outside of the meeting were identified and reviewed and/or discussed during meetings. As a large group, facilitation was critical to effective collaborative processes. Facilitation was shared over time and where those facilitating were absent others took on this role, with other members providing co-facilitation and/or facilitation support roles including taking meeting notes. Thus, facilitation became a shared responsibility with shifts over time to meet the group needs.

Research outcomes – Evaluating and validating

Participant–researchers worked online across different countries, cultural contexts and time zones, actively contributing throughout the project. The process was found to be both generative and regenerative. Working through the four phases of co-operative inquiry, including reflecting on case studies, enabled participant–researchers to develop enhanced understandings of various approaches to work-integrated learning, including how to ensure positive student learning experiences in unique innovative arrangements, and identification of quality markers across the different contexts (Short et al., 2022). The co-writing process occurred through a combination of individual contributions and collaborative, simultaneous, live writing, review and editing with the findings presented at a conference and published (Whitaker et al., 2022b). Through this process, the participant–researcher group developed as a community of practice, building a supportive network for future research activities. This network has strengthened, with additional members drawn from an expanded range of countries. The academics and professionals engaged in this inquiry continue to undertake further co-operative inquiries and collective writing projects.

Challenges associated with utilising co-operative inquiry in this research

This inquiry involved people from four countries, however, all co-authors had the same motivation and concern, that is, innovation and overcoming the issue of distance within field education so that people can achieve their educational goals (Short et al., 2022). This meant the inquirers were like-minded people passionate about promoting and reflecting on innovative workplace-integrated learning and the quality of such learning experiences. As part of the inquiry, the authors deeply considered the challenge and potential of subjectivity and how this could impact the conversations (Short et al., 2022). They also recognised the legitimacy of international reflexivity activities to enhance and broaden current knowledge (Short et al., 2022).

Discussion

The four case studies illustrate key features of the co-operative inquiry methodology. In each example, the research question emerged from group discussions early in the inquiry and, once articulated, became an important anchor or reference point for the analysis. While a structured process, flexibility enabled adaptation within each group and topic with demonstrated outcomes.

The four case studies demonstrate the utility and flexibility of the co-operative inquiry methodology. The methodology can be employed to investigate issues of international, national and local significance. Topics of interest were: accreditation standards and mental health curricula; access to a national faith-based non-government institution engaging with people with disabilities and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; student experiences of work integrated learning; and international approaches to work-integrated learning pedagogy. These case studies demonstrate that local experiences can inform our understanding of global issues and solutions. The case studies also demonstrated that the methodology can successfully incorporate those commonly excluded from research design, such as students and industry professionals.

An inquiry process is a unique educational opportunity for research novices to develop research knowledge and skills, including writing skills. In a co-operative inquiry, the literature review and concurrent research design is undertaken collectively. Participation is collaborative and collegial. As explored, research outcomes vary and can include advocacy for change, the development of theory from practice, and the evaluation of practice strategies.

A research process that is grounded in principles and values

In contrast to many research methodologies driven by output demands, co-operative inquiry is a process-driven methodology that cycles through action and reflection across the research phases (Reason, 1999). In the case studies provided, the research groups actively incorporated social work values of inclusion, reflection and effective processes grounded in respect, dignity, social justice and professional integrity – principles that are central to social work (AASW, 2020a).

In analysing the case studies vis-à-vis the literature, three key conclusions emerged. First, the case studies demonstrate the utility and value of this process-driven methodology in engaging with diverse groups, including those less powerful or more vulnerable. Second, upon critical reflection, limited time frames create challenges for moving through the four phases, particularly from immersion in the data to action, and revision of the initial topic to draw conclusions through to completion. There is a need for an ending or exit point from the cycle bringing the research to a conclusion. Third, as a qualitative research process, co-operative inquiry is able to support various group sizes, including large groups of people (e.g., up to 16 as in the case studies provided) as co-researchers, co-participants and co-authors actively and effectively engaged in the inquiry and writing processes.

New knowledge

The experience of the researchers involved in the illustrative case studies found the process of co-operative inquiry to be informed by a strengths-based perspective (Healy, 2022). The strengths perspective enabled the identification of a phenomenon and recognition of complexities, whilst drawing on extensive knowledge and effective practice examples to inform the research process.

The four case studies also confirm that a co-operative inquiry methodology engages the research collective in a deep examination of the research topic, arising as it does from shared knowledge, personal experience and collective critical reflection. The result was a more informed and enlightened understanding of the issues at hand, which led to the development of new knowledge.

The utility of a participatory approach

Three key themes emerged whilst examining the inquiry process of each case study. First, the case studies represent a range of applications of this methodology. Second, like other participatory approaches, co-operative inquiry has the power to counter positivist approaches to research, where the researcher/s undertake the process and represent the views of others. Instead, through power-sharing and the empowerment of all in their dual roles of researcher and participant, all involved are able to present their unique insights into the field. Third, an inquiry process can draw on a broad spectrum of thinking. In contrast to privileged researcher representation, this methodology is highly participatory and inclusive with participants engaged as co-researcher, co-participants and co-producers of the research output and recognised as co-authors. The inquiry approach values the contributions of all co-researchers independently of time, skills or capacity, acknowledging that each participant will contribute differently at varying points of the process, with an underlying principle of ‘no guilt research’.

Accessibility

Research, including many participatory research approaches, are seen as inaccessible to professionals, practitioners and user groups who rely on the expert researcher to instigate and conduct research on behalf of others. Co-operative inquiry is an accessible research methodology that can support the engagement of novice researchers as partners in the research process actively participating in co-design and co-production. This methodology aims to place the power of research in the hands of those who may otherwise not consider themselves capable and can help to bridge the gap between practitioner and researcher. The examples illustrate the establishment of a research collective to which all members contribute. They highlight the value of the research as a platform for voices normally marginalised or silenced in traditional research, and with it the potential for rich new insights into the fields of study.

Upholds evidence-based practice

Evidence-based practice is often cited as best-practice with a preference for ‘gold standard’ experimental, standardised research designs (Epstein, 2002). In social science and health contexts, it can be difficult to design this approach given the complexities of the human condition and complex to translate such experiences from research into real-world contexts. Similarly, standardised research designs overlook the vast range of data and knowledge in practice contexts, including that based on practitioner experience (Epstein, 2002). Likewise, they can fail to recognise the different kinds of knowledge held by service-users as legitimate and valuable contributions to the distinctive fields. Overall, positivist research fails to acknowledge these voices as worthy of prioritising or as research participants capable of self-representation. In contrast, co-operative inquiry as a qualitative, participatory methodology provides a way to draw on, and translate, a wealth of practice data and knowledge into theory in a manner that recognises the complexities of both the human condition and real-world contexts. This use of practice wisdom to create new theory may be more accessible to other practitioners, given their grounding in complex, real-world experiences.

While co-operative inquiry is an accessible and inclusive approach to research, the dynamics of engaging reflectivity to generate evidence-based processes can be challenging to manage. Fostering courage to contribute to a collaborative process can also be a challenge, with an intrinsic learning curve and the associated need to support participants to develop confidence. Similarly, time commitment is a common theme, as each of the projects involved regular, collaborative engagement across a time span of 6–24 months. Evidently then, access, interest and mutual respect become important factors underpinning individual commitment to the process.

Ethical challenges

As with all research involving humans, deep consideration should be given to ethics, as both intrinsic to a co-operative inquiry process and as a formal requirement. Care must be taken when reflexively navigating different dimensions in practice. For example, when research engages in knowledge-building with vulnerable populations, there is a need to be highly sensitive to the range of ethical challenges, risks and requirements. Many vulnerable groups perceive their role in research as being objects of research, rather than acknowledged contributors. As noted by Oates (2002), a genuinely participatory and inclusive approach can be emancipatory for people experiencing disadvantage. Insofar as co-operative inquiry overcomes the traditional distinction between knower and known and researcher and researched, it promotes an egalitarian approach to research. This approach enables all researcher–participants to maintain control in the presentation and representation of findings in their role as co-authors.

Despite its inclusive and egalitarian intentions informed by principles of collaboration, working with vulnerable groups often involves significant power differentials within co-operative inquiry research groups. Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC) are especially aware of this. Paradoxically, conditionalities imposed by HREC ethics approval may result in the unintentional undermining of co-operative inquiry's egalitarian principles. It may even change the group dynamics by requiring the appointment of a principal researcher and the endorsement of a lead organisation. Such formalities introduce a sense of ownership, which is inconsistent with the principles of co-operative inquiry. Irrespective of external factors there is a need for ongoing reflection and vigilance throughout the inquiry to ensure inclusivity and fairness for the benefit of all contributors (Tee and Lathlean, 2004).

Collectives, communities and leadership

Researchers in each of the illustrative case studies noted how new links between researchers, professionals and other participants were born from collaboration, which in turn enabled the development of new research communities and communities of practise. These communities then generated interest in future research from those not traditionally engaged in research processes and expanded research opportunities by inviting others to new projects. This building of a broader research base has the potential to generate a more robust body of knowledge in each area with each new practice-based research. Nonetheless, group dynamics are notoriously challenging, particularly those with egalitarian aspirations. Challenges in relation to establishing and maintaining a co-operative inquiry include reaching collective agreements on collaborative practices and defining and sustaining membership.

Positively, the ability of co-operative inquiry to build relationships between participants does not depend upon localised participation or specific pre-existing groups. An increasing availability of technology creates greater opportunity for international research to occur using this methodology (Whitaker et al., 2022b). The case studies showcased research conducted by geographically dispersed groups using current communication technology. The development of virtual research teams has particular complexities such as working across time zones, but once established these teams can effectively undertake co-operative inquiry research. For example, the student-led and international research projects were completed entirely online. In these virtual team contexts, attention to the group dynamics and ensuring effective opportunities for all to contribute throughout the process was essential. In the online context, there is a need to ensure that all co-researchers have access to the required technology so a lack of access does not become a barrier to participation.

While co-operative inquiry is an inherently egalitarian research methodology, a group may approve of individual or group mentoring or leadership, in order to provide guidance and facilitation. This person, or group, may be the instigator of the research group, a nominated leader, or may evolve organically from within the group. This leadership may be shared or rotated throughout the inquiry. As with any leadership, there are potential difficulties where this is ineffective. For example, a leader may be someone who sees themselves as senior or having a greater vested interest in the work and therefore attempts to impose their views, undermining the principle of egalitarianism and the collaborative process. Alternatively, a leader or facilitator may provide insufficient guidance or input into the functioning of the group, leading to a chaotic process or an inability to conclude the project. The cumulative sense from undertaking the case studies was that the most effective leadership approach is based on distributed leadership that is facilitative of the research process and effective group dynamics.

This article highlights that while limitations exist and ought to be duly considered and addressed where possible, the significant benefits of co-operative inquiry speak to the broad utility of the research methodology to inform action and knowledge building in a range of contexts. Co-operative inquiry can be used to analyse complex issues in depth and breadth across local or international contexts. It can be engaged in by experienced researchers, practitioners, PhD candidates and novice researchers for diverse purposes.

Conclusion

As demonstrated, co-operative inquiry is a qualitative, participative research methodology suited to fields of practice that are underpinned by an aspiration for respect, dignity, social justice and professional integrity. It is particularly relevant and applicable to the social sciences and health disciplines. Co-operative inquiry is useful in grappling with and developing the complexities of pedagogy and practice, and for professional development purposes. These are likely the reasons why this methodology appears to be increasing in popularity.

For research that seeks to engage professionals and people from vulnerable populations, the egalitarian principles of co-operative inquiry are particularly relevant. This research approach uniquely and appropriately engages those with lived experience of a particular issue, demonstrating respect for, and interest in, the knowledge and experience of those traditionally excluded from defining research agendas and outputs. Likewise, co-operative inquiry respects and celebrates the knowledge and wisdom that comes from ethical professional practice and supports its effective translation into practice-based research and theory. These philosophical precepts are consistent with the principle of social justice. The application of these principles to real-world settings provides an opportunity to broaden our understanding of the issues under exploration. Furthermore, this non-competitive methodology opens safe spaces for active engagement in knowledge creation, thus supporting novice researchers, practitioners and lived-experience participants to build their understanding of, and confidence in, research processes.

The four illustrative case studies demonstrate the utility, diversity and flexibility of this methodology, including the potential to support diverse local, national and international research through employing effective communication technology to sustain virtual teams. Such technology enhances research accessibility and, by overcoming geographical distances, contains the potential to collect a broader spectrum of thinking and alternative voices than a group confined to a shared physical space.

While co-operative inquiry can be applied in a range of settings, it has significant value in the social, health and human sciences where values-based research and the principle of social justice are taken seriously. While ongoing critical reflection will be required to ensure its egalitarian aspirations are attained in practice, the underlying intention and ongoing focus on process attest to the benefits of co-operative inquiry for participants and for a broader and deeper engagement with complex, real-world problems. Perhaps more importantly, they reveal the nascent potential for research to develop solutions to these problems, headed by those who are most directly affected.