NOVEMBER 14: A GOOD DAY FOR A TRANSFORMATIVE INQUIRY
Yesterday was a productive day. Paulette and I interviewed the judge, the regional chief public defender and an assistant prosecutor. But I have to wonder if it is a true interview. I would prefer to avoid that. What we are engaging in, really, is a dialog. For video. And in doing so, we are researching, but at the same time, we are learning and changing. The incredible dialogs that we had today remind me of a quote that has been attributed to :Tich Nhat Hahn, “In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change.” I enjoyed true dialog today—I left the interviews with a changed outlook. I think that Paulette did as well.
When Howard spoke in class, he discussed the transformative inquiry. Surprisingly and predictably, we have adopted most of the guidelines and values for that research in our work. (See Howard Zehr, “Us and Them: A Photographer Looks at Police Pictures: The Photograph as Evidence.” Contemporary Justice Review, 1998, Vol 1 pp. 377-385.) Our work is aiming not only at “pure” knowledge but also social action. I think we were working on this on two levels—one is we were engaged in a dialog where we were introspectively exploring definitions of justice. At one point Paulette and Deb and I were discussing the women’s witness room and Paulette commented on how I had hugged the witness and questioned whether or not the hug was justice. Deb smiled and didn’t seem to hesitate to agree that justice might be a hug. We also left off copies of Howard’s Little Book which could lead to some future exciting projects with our participants.
The transformative inquiry also acknowledges that much knowledge is subject, constructed and interrelational (Zehr.) Part of the inquiry recognizes our own stories that we bring to this research. Paulette and I are including interviews of one another and our own perceptions on justice and architecture. During the dialogs, we frequently revisit each of our roles within the judicial processes and our experiences, even to the extent that the Judge shared his memories of attending court as a child with his father at the Mercer County Courthouse.
The transformative inquiry also recognizes the complex and limited natures of our findings. (Zehr). It is my hope that as we edit and present our “findings” that they will not be “truths” at all—but the simple stories that have been told to us, in an honest, and forthcoming means by our storytellers.
Transformative inquiry also respects “the subjects” with values such as collaboration, accountability, transparency of goals, methods of motives, benefits to subjects and opportunities for the subject to present themselves in their own voice. We have agreed with the subject not to broadcast our dialogs until they’ve had the opportunity to review them and find that our representations fairly present their stories. We have presented ourselves as students of restorative justice who are intrigued to learn what the physical space of the courthouse has to do with justice.
Another aspect of transformative inquiry is that our role is that of facilitator, collaborator, and learner more than neutral expert (Zehr.) As I’ve written consistently since 1990, I don’t have a notion how to be either neutral or an expert. What is an expert anyway? A disinterested professional who is engaged only for the money? I have never practiced law with that vision and don’t intend to conduct research any differently. The possibility of even a judge being neutral was dispelled by legal realism in the 1920s. To deny our own histories, ideas, intentions and dreams as we approach any project is a dangerous lie.
After we had the dialog with the judge, I thought about how sad it was that we are not given more opportunities to engage in a discourse in theory more frequently. I have been appearing before this judge for about twelve years. However, I have never had the opportunity to hear the deep insightful wisdom that he offered on such a theoretical basis. (As a matter of fact, during some of his rulings I have to admit that I was skeptical that he had any wisdom left—at all!) The value that am able to attach this process, where we are taking the time to sit down and talk about these very real, but at the same time, theoretical questions is consistent with Howard’s proposition that transformative research values the process, as much as the product.
As far as the issue of being attuned to the potential harms and unintended consequences for the subjects, and others (Zehr)—we are taking every step we can to remain respectful and provide those with whom we are dialoging the opportunity for a review. I am also proposing that prior to publication, we circulate our video product to others who may have an interest in this topic to help us be aware of potential unintended consequences.
Transformative research also seeks a balance of subjectivity and objectivity—where we avoid co-optation. Since this is self-funded that is not an issue. Since our dialog is with my colleagues, I suppose that we should be aware of a potential based on that relationship. However, I would add that in this profession, we disagree more often than we agree. I have filed appeals and writs against this Judge at the Supreme Court. I have argued vehemently against the public defender. Thus, while I think that our relationship provides a risk for cooptation, I do not think that it is so great to outweigh the value in working with those with whom this dialog is possible, in part, because of that relationship.
Finally, the transformative inquiry employs verbal and non-linear, as well as linear, methods of elicitation and presentation. During our dialogs, I had some burning questions and area of questions that I knew should be included. What do you like and not like about different courtrooms and why? What role does aesthetics play? How did you feel in the dilapidated John street courthouse? Your clients? How did that affect the proceedings? Justice? What experience do you have with the women’s witness room? Do you think Justice might be lurking in there somewhere? However, I didn’t know the order of the questions or even whether or not they may have meaning in each interview. What I did know that in each case, I was talking with someone who has been working for a long time for justice. I wanted them to tell me, in their time, in their own voice, in their own, what the building had to do with it, if anything.
After this full day, Paulette and I left the courthouse excited. We’d learned so much more than we had imagined. We’d heard stories that we couldn’t have anticipated. And this simple little project developed its own story, one that we didn’t write, but certainly share.
No comments:
Post a Comment