Action research commonly excels in educational settings, but has been shown to be successful in other professional areas. This success is thanks to the objectives set by the researcher and the assertiveness in the choice of techniques because he knows that it impacts the results and in turn, the systematization. To this end, Pérez (2016) indicates that one of the methodological challenges in the process of systematizing experiences is the search and pertinent application of techniques that allow articulating the needs, the topic and the proposed objectives.
With the above, in order to understand a little about the techniques and systematization of action research, the present synthesis is outlined below:
The research techniques defined by Pérez (2016: 46) are “only work tools that are based on a broader process. For this reason, it is necessary to know in advance what they are for, how and when to use it ”. To this assertion, Latorre (2005: 53) emphasizes that what determines the technique to be used is the purpose of the research, in turn characterizing it as the different instruments, strategies and audiovisual media that social researchers use in collecting the information: interviews, observations, diaries, video recordings, document analysis, etc.
On the other hand, Martínez (2006) states that the techniques basically focus on direct or participatory observation and the semi-structured interview, even though for the author he assures that the researcher with qualitative methodology has two very valuable techniques: "triangulation" and audio and video recordings.
In this regard, Vargas (2010: 43) points out that by triangulation we are understanding here that the information obtained by one source can be crossed with other information from a different source in order to increase the interpretive certainty of the data collected.
Consequently, for the researcher to select the appropriate technique requires some insight as it will provide the elements and the information required, and that it can easily be adapted at the time of action. Vargas (2010) recommends choosing one or more information gathering techniques in the field. To this end, Pérez (2016: 46) affirms that a single technique is not enough in the systematization, given the diversity of experiential situations that are present, which requires the use of a diversity of techniques, resources and flexible strategies.
Systematization in research - action
Cifuentes (2016: 3) affirms that the systematization of experiences has been created "in Latin America as a product of the effort to build our own frameworks of theoretical interpretation from particular conditions of our reality, based on the reference to the particularity of the Latin American context."
On the other hand, Van (2008: 5) asserts that the concern to systematize arose strongly at the beginning of the 1980s, as a concern of professionals who work directly with popular groups in the implementation of projects and actions that seek to contribute to improve their living conditions. The pioneers of systematization, Pérez (2016: 28) names Oscar Jara, Sergio Martinic, Alejandro Ghiso, they assumed more than a type of research, a socio-critical approach to address the processes of reflection and interpretation.
Now, defining systematization, for Cifuentes (2016: 4) it is “a process of social construction of knowledge that allows us to reflect on practice, to learn from it, conceptualize it, understand it and enhance it”. Now, in the case of action research, Pérez (2016: 27) points out that systematization operates as an integrating axis between action and transformation, the author emphasizes the importance of care that must be taken in the intensity of the relationship that it is established between research and action and the need to be clear about the why and why of systematization.
Pérez cites Ghiso (2008), to emphasize that the task of the promoters of systematization is to go beyond courses, models, recipes, techniques and investigative routines, which may be required in the academic environment, but which generally do not lead to critical proposals, nor to the reconstruction of practices. Based on the author's statement, the systematization is based on knowing, understanding and interpreting reality and discerning about the facts.
With what was indicated by the cited authors, in the systematization, one learns and rebuilds from experience, as long as the critical interpretation is used to generate knowledge, product of the socialization and execution of actions as a reference for the support of information.
Below are some guidelines presented by Pérez (2016), although the author indicates that there is no single method, in the following lines she compiles the main procedures:
- Beginning: in this sense, the beginning of systematization begins with a key question: Why systematize? It is about recognizing the felt need to reconstruct the lived experience. Development: the unfolding of the systematization process: it means the recovery, analysis and interpretation of the experience. Closing: the communication and socialization of learning: it is a phase made up of the steps that involve the systematization of the experience.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
After understanding a bit theoretically and methodologically the techniques and systematization in action research, it is important to point out that the researcher must be aware of the intention of the research, it is not a simple activity, I can even say that using the chosen techniques and systematizing is a complex process, since it is about transforming. I share the opinion of Pérez (2016) where he points out that systematization operates as an integrating axis between action and transformation, so the facts are consciously linked with what is planned.
Participatory action research is a method widely used today, especially by teachers, since it means putting into practice everything that was planned, hoping to obtain very rich information in order to reflect, systematize and transform. To do this, you must have clear and defined techniques to use, since they are the providers of information that will allow you to move towards the heart of the investigation, such as systematization. This implies reconstructing facts and experiences, from critical thinking and not from the replication of opinions.
The techniques that are part of the research method - participatory action, the weight of systematization falls on them, it is important to select them with the attitude, inexperience and experience of the researcher and the participating group since it will allow the information to be summarized, the analysis carried out and the critical interpretation of everything experienced during the investigation.
However, the record of daily activities will constitute the bases of the knowledge to be generated, for this the techniques will be key if they are adapted to the context, development conditions and intentions since it can generate some dilemmas, for this, the theoretical authors especially Pérez advises that a single technique is not enough in the systematization, given the diversity of experiential situations that are present, which requires the use of a diversity of techniques, resources and flexible strategies.
However, what was raised by the author should not stop there, in my critical position I point out the importance of how and when to use this diversity of techniques since such an assertion could separate the contextual understanding and the intentionality of the research with the confrontation of the participants or key informant.
Considering these aspects is important in the systematization process, so it would help to understand what happened and how it happened, each participant is a different entity and the researcher has the challenge of approaching the experiences and recording them as they observed it. Although it seems repetitive, the clarity about the concept of systematization stands out, as this will affect both the theoretical aspects and the methodological approach that is developed to systematize the experiences.
Therefore, systematizing means building knowledge and communicating it, based on practice, and that means understanding in depth which were the main and not so much aspects of the experiences lived, and even in the deviations that may arise, they can be channeled in favor of the researcher, turning it more into a strength than a threat to its purpose, reflecting what it can do to improve it, To culminate, the systematization should not remain in only academic or simple written accomplishments, the work that the researcher did together with the participating team should be made known, disseminate the experiences lived, and in this way honor the social commitment in our environment to contribute knowledge and experiences.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Cifuentes, R. IAP AND SYSTEMATIZATION OF EXPERIENCES: BETS, PROPOSALS, CHALLENGES TO BUILD EDUCATIONS AND RELEVANT AND ENHANCING INTERVENTIONS V Latin American Meeting of Social Sciences Methodology, Latin American Network of Social Sciences Methodology, Faculty of Social Sciences, National University of Cuyo November 2016. ISSN 2408-3976Latorre A., (2.005) Action research. Know and change educational practice. Editorial Graó. Barcelona.Martínez, M. QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION (CONCEPTUAL SYNTHESIS) IIPSI MAGAZINE FACULTAD DE PSICOLOGÍA UNMSM. ISSN: 1560 - 909X VOL. 9 - Nº 1 - 2006 PP. 123 - 146 Pérez de M., T. (2016) Open National University. Didactic Guide for the Systematization of Experiences in University Contexts. Editions of the Academic Vice-Rector's Office. First edition Van, H.September - October 2008. Systematization. Reference text and consultations. Research, training and pedagogical action center. Esteli, Nicaragua.
