I have several blogposts about limitations of CAE and have mentioned them when doing CAE publications. CAE is exclusive. You miss out on experiences of those who didn’t join the CAE, for a variety of reasons including dissent, but also not feeling able to express oneself in this method and not having time. Some of our collaborative work in rhizo14/5 got creative and sometimes chaotic, some ppl didn’t find themselves in that form also. More than that, just collaborating doesn’t remove power hierarchy. Some ppl will have stronger voices by personality or by training/experience or by race, gender, position. Etc. I am one who has that dominating type of personality and can dominate if i don’t step back. That also means some ideas/voices dominate and this can lead to groupthink in CAE. I wrote all this over several posts that I think u may have read but it’s hard to remember of course! Can go back and link to them if you like and put them in the bottom of this blogpost as a P.S.?
In any case – the CAE of the oppressed/subaltern is more empowering for them than the interpretivist research of the dominant ABOUT them. Because no matter what it’s an external person setting the research question and agenda and interpretation. More problems happen when the subaltern does not participate. Because even if the dominant initiate then include the subaltern… Like profs including students in their research… Requires a heck of a lot of stepping back and supporting while allowing the less experienced to lead. Which maybe in education is a pedagogically good idea and of use…but not usually in the world.
And yet. Really. Who is any of us to think we know what is best for another? To set questions for another. This relates a bit to my OER17 keynote btw. Thanks