‘Swimming in the swamp’ - inquiry into accreditation, community development, and social change

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Putri

Research paper examining how accreditation relates to community development and social change through a cooperative inquiry conducted by tutors. It explains the rationale and approach to community development, emphasizing education as a core process and praxis as action-reflection to address inequalities. The study reviews relevant literature, then reports findings: awarding credits for set learning periods has positive value, yet contemporary models of practice can misalign accreditation with education for social change.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Inquiry rationale and co-operative inquiry framework

Accreditation vs. curriculum-centered education

Impact of accreditation on individuals and projects

The “Four Ps” framework and overlapping research questions

Understanding community development for social change

‘Swimming in the swamp’ – inquiry into accreditation, community development, and social change. camilla fitzsimons, respond! vha & nui maynooth peter dorman, the community action network (can) Abstract Drawing from extensive experience as community educators, this paper discusses accreditation and its relationship to community development as informed by a cooperative inquiry conducted by tutors. Beginning with our rationale for undertaking the inquiry, it details our approach to community development and the centrality of education within this. It offers a review of some literature pertinent to both concepts before presenting findings from the inquiry itself. It concludes by emphasising the positive features of the awarding of credits for set-learning periods but expresses concern about difficulties with contemporary models of practice including a degree of discordance between accreditation and education for social change. This paper seeks to explore the relationship between accreditation and a particular approach to community development. It is informed by participation in a co-operative inquiry (2011-2012), a project that began with conversations between us and Frank Naughton from Partners Training for Transformation (TfT) . The idea of co-operative inquiry is based partly on the ideas of Heron (1996: 1) who defines it as ‘two or more people researching a topic through their own experience of it, using a series of cycles in which they move between this experience, and reflecting together on it’. This notion of action, and reflection upon action, is familiar to those of us involved in community development and who see education as a central process within this. At its core is the idea of praxis, that we reflect on our responses to inequalities and recalibrate actions in light of these. This process will throw up questions which trouble us-where we feel stuck rather than certain, and need to inquire deeper. A good question isone that matters, and to which we genuinely do not have the answer. We do not approach inquiry with a view we wish to defend at all costs. This is not to deny that we hold positions, but rather to acknowledge our positions in themselves do not enable us to move beyond our “stuckness”. So what is the question here? We named our inquiry, Accreditation, debit or credit for social change? Understanding accreditation as the allocation of recognisable, measurable credits for learning, we wondered how this relates to what we see as the primary purpose of community development; the emancipation of groups of people who live with inequalities? Our question had grown out of experiences. We knew how following a pre-set curriculum contradicts the process-centred learning we believe in (hooks, 1994: 70) where questions emerge from participants and we follow them rather than shelve them to serve the curriculum. This way we uncover rather than cover content. We were familiar with how introducing written assignments affects participants, causing some to abandon dialogic learning to concentrate on the technical requirements of producing a standard piece of work. On the other hand we have seen confidence grow in people who overcome fears and produce that assignment, facing demons often engendered in unhappy school experiences. Some have described this process as life changing. We see how developing an argument to be tested by scrutiny sharpens participants’ thinking and how pennies drop when feedback is given. Aside from the impact on individuals, what about the impact on the project of social change; on addressing the structures that perpetuate inequalities? From a previous inquiry, some of us had devised a framework for capturing ideas called the “Four Ps”(CAN & Partners TfT, 2005) . Each “P” refers to a level of interest in the subject. • Practical. Our interest is technical. Can we structure accreditation to be more participant-friendly? Can we build assignments more easily into a process-centred learning p

FAQs

What does the “Four Ps” framework include?

It organizes interest in the subject into Practical, Psycho-social, Political, and Philosophical dimensions, guiding four overlapping questions about meaning, psychological impact, power, and congruent practice for social change.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Putri