Introduction

We speak from different places, both geographically and professionally, and this may be an important contextual information with which to begin this text. Two of us work in the State of São Paulo, Brazil - one is a psychologist, supervising Master’s and Doctorate thesis and dissertation thesis, as well as Scientific Initiation works and Post-doctoral Fellowships at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP), in the fields of Education, Teacher Education, and carrying out her¹ own investigation in the Education of school educators (i.e., teachers, coordinators, principals and their deputies). The other works at the Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), at a campus situated in a rather poor neighborhood in the outskirts of the city. Her work focuses primarily on the education of educators who have students with specific educational needs in their classrooms². Therefore, her Master and Doctorate supervisees are investigating aspects of inclusive education, as are her Scientific Initiation and Post-Doctoral Fellowship supervisees. She is an Applied Linguist. The third is a French researcher working in Neuchâtel, Switzerland. She is a long-standing companion of the Activity Clinics research team in Paris, where she did her PhD in work psychology and began her academic career. She is now supervising Master and Doctoral students in the field of Psychology & Education, with the specificity that each of them also studies another discipline in social sciences - therefore, psychology and education at her university are very integrated with linguistics, geography, philosophy, history, or anthropology for example.

We have known each other’s work for some time and, in 2020, each of us delivered a class in a course organized at UNIFESP, focusing on different methodological perspectives and backgrounds. As a result of these classes, we became more interested in finding out how much of what we employed methodologically resembled what the other was doing, especially considering that the three types of investigations were culturally-historically based, i.e., were theoretically founded on Vygotsky’s (1924-1934) work. A partnership was established then, resulting in a course delivered over the months of April - June, 2021 for Master’s and Doctorate students of the three institutions, as well as people from other institutions and states that might be interested in the subject, including a couple of professors and post-doctoral researchers that were invited to take part and even co-deliver some of the classes.

After the course was finalized, we were invited by the editors of a PUC-SP Journal - Educational Psychology - to co-organize this special issue, which presents papers from course participants and a few other researchers that were invited to contribute with papers on specific topics that might even generate further discussions on the webinars that we intend to organize in the near future.

We have organized this editorial paper in three languages and with one main objective, i.e., to present a brief understanding of each of the three methodologies that brought us together in this investigative work. To meet this main objective, we have decided to write in the three languages in which the course was taught. We must clarify, though, that the course was primarily taught in English. However, a lot of the discussion was held in Portuguese and in French (especially Portuguese since the majority of participants spoke either Portuguese or English). In the classes, when someone spoke Portuguese or French, their speech was interpreted into English by one of the participants. This however, will not be done here. We will keep the three languages of interaction, constituting perhaps the first tripartite text (in terms of language) that the journal has ever published. We dare say that it might be the first - or at least one of the very few - published in three languages in Brazil. Besides, it is worth mentioning that one of the texts in this thematic issue is written in Portuguese, and is also followed by a link to the text in Brazilian Sign Language (Libras) - another innovation of this thematic number (and the first time that the journal will publish a paper in Libras³.

The text (language) order will be the one of authorship, i.e, we will first have the text in French, with specific aspects of the Clinic of Activities (CA), and written by the first author; followed by the text in Portuguese about Trans-Formation Research (PTF⁴), written by the second author, and then by Critical Collaborative Research (PCCol) ⁵, which will be discussed in English written by the third author. This part of the text will be finalized with what we have identified as some of the similarities and differences, and will be written by the three authors.

Clinique de l'activité

La clinique de l’activité est une approche théorique et méthodologique qui s’ancre dans le champ de la psychologie du travail. Elle a été développée en France par Yves Clot et son équipe, à partir des années 1990 (voir ^{Clot, 1995}, ¹⁹⁹⁹), au sein du CNAM (Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers), à Paris, qui est une institution particulière dans le champ de l’éducation et de la formation en France. En effet, le CNAM accueille non des étudiant-es mais des auditeurs/trices, qui ont presque tous pour caractéristique de reprendre des études tout en poursuivant une activité professionnelle en parallèle. La formation délivrée au sein de la chaire de Psychologie du travail et clinique de l’activité est ainsi une formation en psychologie du travail, destinée à former des intervenant-es en reconversion professionnelle, dans le champ de l’analyse de l’activité, de la formation professionnelle, de la validation des acquis de l’expérience, ou de de la santé au travail, par exemple.

Dès ses débuts, la clinique de l’activité a construit une équipe de recherche originale dans le monde universitaire, car elle associait très étroitement dans ses séminaires de recherche des " chercheurs professionnels " (enseignants-chercheurs de diverses disciplines, psychologues surtout mais aussi philosophes ou liguistes, par exemple, ainsi que les doctorants de l’équipe et visiteurs étrangers) et des “professionnels chercheurs” (enseignant-es de collège et lycée, formateurs/trices, conseillères d’orientation, médecin du travail, ingénieur-es, par exemple), mobilisés conjointement par l’analyse clinique, théorique et méthodologique, d’interventions réelles dans des situations de travail complexes. Ce modèle de fonctionnement institutionnel original - peu encouragé dans le monde universitaire- reflète les rapports dialectiques entre théorie et pratique, et la place fondamentale de l’action dans l’élaboration théorique, telle que soulignée par L. ^{Vygotski 6}(1999). Il s’accorde aux modalités d’intervention de l’équipe dans les milieux de travail, qui ont toujours un double objectif d’action (par la transformation de l’organisation du travail) et de connaissance (dans une démarche scientifique). Ce courant de recherche s’ancre dans la continuité des travaux en psychologie historico-culturelle du psychologue russe, ainsi que dans la tradition de psychologie et d’ergonomie du travail francophone (^{Lahy & Pacaud, 1947}; ^{Pacaud, 1949}; ^{Ombredane & Faverge, 1955}; ^{Wisner, 1962}, ¹⁹⁸⁵, ¹⁹⁹⁷; ^{Leplat, 1993}). Cette dernière construit elle-même une réflexion sophistiquée sur les rapports entre connaissance et transformation du travail (voir par exemple l’ouvrage de référence de ^{Guérin, Laville et Daniellou, 1997}) et fait de l’analyse de l’activité des travailleurs le point nodal de la réflexion sur les rapports entre santé au travail tout au long de la vie, formation, efficacité du travail et conception de l’organisation du travail. La tradition d’intervention est ainsi largement présente dans le monde francophone via l’ergonomie et l’analyse de l’activité, mais la clinique de l’activité s’en empare sous un jour original, qui est celui du développement, posé à la fois comme objectif et comme méthode (^{Vygotski, 1927/1999}). Le concept de développement est ainsi au centre de ses préoccupations: l’intervention se donne comme but premier de développer le pouvoir d’agir des professionnels, un terme repris de Spinoza, dans une démarche qui prolonge les réflexions du médecin Canguilhem, pour qui la santé suppose non seulement l’adaptation aux normes existantes, mais la re-normalisation, c’est-à-dire la production de normes propres pour vivre. Le pouvoir d’agir "mesure le rayon d’action effectif du sujet ou des sujets dans leur milieu professionnel habituel, ce qu’on appelle le rayonnement de l’activité, son pouvoir de recréation" (^{Clot, 2008}, p. 13). Les transformations de l’organisation du travail sont avant tout entre les mains des professionnels, d’où l’importance de soutenir le développement de leur pouvoir d’agir en situation:"on peut aujourd’hui considérer que les transformations ne sont portées durablement que par l’action des collectifs de travail sur eux-mêmes" (^{Clot, 2008}, , p. 102). Le dialogue, orchestré par les chercheurs dans l’intervention, devient “un instrument de développement de la pensée, source de développement potentiel de l’expérience” (^{Clot, 2008}, p. 220) - les chercheurs se positionnant du coup non comme experts du travail lui-même, mais comme " artisans du cadre dialogique " (^{Scheller, 2003}) pour le mettre en discussion et réflexion dans les collectifs constitués pour l’intervention.

Le renouvellement revendiqué de cette tradition d’analyse de l’activité francophone s’inscrit dans cette perspective développementale, autour de la prise en compte de la fonction du collectif dans le développement à la fois des individus et des situations de travail: “Nous cherchons à contribuer au renouvellement de la tradition francophone d’analyse de l’activité. On sait que celle-ci nous a transmis l’identification classique de l’écart entre le prescrit et le réel. Or, il nous paraît nécessaire d’aller au-delà de cette description traditionnelle du travail. Selon nous, il n’existe pas d’un côté la prescription sociale et de l’autre l’activité réelle; d’un côté la tâche, de l’autre l’activité; ou encore d’un côté l’organisation du travail et de l’autre l’activité du sujet. Il existe, entre l’organisation du travail et le sujet lui-même, un travail de réorganisation de la tâche par les collectifs professionnels, une recréation de l’organisation du travail par le travail d’organisation du collectif.

L’objet théorique et pratique que nous cherchons à cerner, c’est précisément ce travail d’organisation du collectif dans son milieu, ou plutôt ses avatars, ses équivoques, ses succès et ses échecs, autrement dit son histoire possible et impossible. Il y a donc entre le prescrit et le réel un troisième terme décisif que nous désignons comme le genre social du métier, le genre professionnel, c’est-à-dire les “obligations” que partagent ceux qui travaillent pour arriver à travailler, souvent malgré tout, parfois malgré l’organisation prescrite du travail. Sans la ressource de ces formes communes de la vie professionnelle, on assiste à un dérèglement de l’action individuelle, à une “chute” du pouvoir d’action et de la tension vitale du collectif, à une perte d’efficacité du travail et de l’organisation elle-même. (Clot & Faïta, 2000, p. 8, c’est nous qui soulignons).

La fonction psychologique du collectif, du titre du livre du même nom (^{Clot, 1999}) se cristallise dans les deux concepts de genre professionnel et de stylisation, qui s’articulent et se complètent:

Celui ou ceux qui travaillent agissent au travers des genres tant qu’ils répondent aux exigences de l’action. Du coup, quand c’est nécessaire, ils ajustent et retouchent les genres en se plaçant également en dehors d’eux par un mouvement, une oscillation parfois rythmique consistant à s’éloigner, à se solidariser, à se confondre selon de continuelles modifications de distance qu’on peut considérer comme des créations stylistiques. C’est d’ailleurs ce travail du style qui produit une stylisation des genres susceptible de les " garder en état de marche ", c’est-à-dire de les transformer en les développant. Les styles ne cessent de métamorphoser les genres professionnels qu’ils prennent comme objets de travail sitôt que ces derniers se "fatiguent" comme moyens d’action. Il y a donc une intériorité réciproque des styles et des genres professionnels qui interdit de faire du style un simple attribut psychologique du sujet, comme on le fait encore assez systématiquement en psychologie (Amalberti, 1996; Huteau, 1987).

Le style participe du genre auquel il fournit son allure. “Les styles sont le retravail des genres en situation, et les genres, du coup, le contraire d’états fixes. Mieux, ilsont toujours inachevés.” (Clot & Faïta, 2000, p. 15, c’est nous qui soulignons). La stylisation par chacun.e de l’action, dans les limites du genre professionnel qui l’encadre (sous peine de transgression), permet le renouvellement du genre professionnel par re-création en situation de façons d’agir singulières, portées par l’histoire et les compétences de chacun.e. La vitalité de l’action de chacun et du genre professionnel dépend donc de leur articulation et de leur recréation en situation : “le style de l’action singulière affranchit le sujet non pas en niant le genre mais par la voie de son développement” (Clot & Faïta, 2000). L’histoire du métier relève ainsi d’une architecture dynamique, dans laquelle se répondent l’activité personnelle, interpersonnelle, transpersonnelle (par le genre professionnel qui les traversent) et impersonnelle (par l’organisation du travail et la définition des rôles et des tâches).

En trente ans d’existence, la clinique de l’activité s’est déployée sur des terrains très variés, qu’il nous est impossible de répertorier dans cette introduction. Les chercheurs en clinique de l’activité interviennent la plupart du temps en réponse à des demandes émanant de milieux professionnels, instruisant “commande” et “ demande”, sur le modèle des pratiques d’intervention de l’analyse du travail dans le monde francophone. Les méthodologies développées en clinique de l’activité sont originales. L’instruction au sosie et les auto-confrontations croisées ont été présentées dans la littérature francophone et anglophone⁷, et nous ne reviendrons pas en détail sur ces deux méthodes ici. Toutefois, nous aimerions souligner deux choses: d’une part, ces deux techniques d’entretien, en dépit de leurs différences apparentes (l’une travaille à partir de la seule parole, avec un dispositif ludique où l’expert instruit l’intervenant-sosie qui cherche à le remplacer, bien naïvement, dans sa situation de travail ; l’autre mobilise des enregistrements vidéo de situation réelle d’activité professionnelle soigneusement sélectionnées et commentés selon des instructions précises dans des contextes sociaux qui varient), partagent beaucoup de principes théoriques et méthodologiques dans leur conception. Par exemple, ces deux méthodes s’appuient sur un modèle de l’activité comme simultanément adressée à soi-même, aux autres et aux objets du monde (^{Clot, 1995}) dans une perspective dialogique, qui fait de l’adresse à autrui l’occasion d’un possible développpement. On retrouve ainsi l’idée forte de ^{Vygotski, pour qui la conscience est avant tout un " contact social avec soi-même " (Vygotski, 2017}). L’autre - et plus largement, le collectif de métier auquel le professionnel s’adresse - sont donc au fondement de ces méthodes. D’autre part, ces méthodes ont trop souvent été reprises ou commentées en dehors du cadre méthodologique dans lequel elles s’inscrivent, et qui est transformatif ou développemental. Ces techniques d’entretien ne sont que des moments singuliers, certes particulièrement attrayants, ou des outils, d’un processus global de recherche qui se déploie habituellement sur un long horizon temporel (de 18 mois à plusieurs années) et construit une collaboration étroite avec des professionnels volontaires dans différents comités (un collectif de recherche associé pour les professionnels de terrain, un comité de pilotage pour les directions, syndicats et autres commanditaires). Ce processus global amène à repenser et restructurer l’ensemble de la démarche de recherche en fonction de ses objectifs d’action (Kloetzer, 2020).

Pour conclure cette brève introduction à la clinique de l’activité, nous aimerions enfin souligner les évolutions que cette dernière a connu depuis sa création. Pour ce faire, nous nous appuierons sur une lecture du dernier ouvrage d’Yves ^{Clot (Clot et al., 2021}). La controverse professionnelle sur les critères du travail bien fait est devenue un objet central de l’intervention en clinique de l’activité. L’analyse de l’activité devient un outil politique de transformation des milieux de travail : en organisant, avec beaucoup de soin, l’analyse collective de situations de travail prototypiques ou problématiques dans des cadres dialogiques sophistiqués, l’intervention ouvre une opportunité de transformer à la fois (a) la façon dont ces problèmes (et le travail des professionnels) est vue, (b) les rapports de force sur la conception de l’organisation du travail et les processus de décision sur cette dernière au sein de l’organisation, (c) les modalités ordinaires du dialogue dans les milieux professionnels. Ceci est illustré, par exemple, par l’analyse détaillée d’une séquence avec les éboueurs d’une grande ville française autour des bennes à ordure:

(…) au cours de ce comité, les “petits problèmes” deviennent “grands”. Les problèmes repérés par les agents, qui “empoisonnent” leurs journées, sont instruits, même partiellement, dans le jeu des objections répétées qui se réalisent dans le dialogue avec la hiérarchie. C’est une forme de coopération spécifique qui s’inaugure entre eux, qu’on pourrait appeler, avec le syndicaliste italien Bruno Trentin (1926-2007), une “coopération conflictuelle”, faisant, même “en petit”, du conflit de critères le point de départ des échanges, à la recherche de quelque chose de neuf. La discussion est poussée dans ses retranchements jusque dans les détails pratiques les plus fins, jusqu’à ce que la banalité du quotidien soit prise au sérieux. (^{Clot et al., 2021}, p. 115)

Et: Cette démarche vise à "revitaliser le conflit social en le rattachant au réel du travail":

Le degré de vérité qu’une organisation peut supporter dans son rapport au réel, loin d’être seulement défini par la hiérarchie, fonctionne dans un champ de forces exposées à la déréalisation. Ce risque de déconnexion appelle la construction et l’expérimentation d’une autre voie pour affecter le dialogue social déjà institué: un développement instituant qui enraye ces processus. Nos résultats sont de ce côté: le collectif, en faisant autorité dans le rapport au réel noué autour de l’objet même de l’activité auquel les agents sont attachés, pousse le travail syndical et le travail de direction à “reprendre racine” (^{Clot et al., 2021}, p. 127).

Le travail avec différents collectifs, hiérarchiquement distincts, d’une part le collectif de métier, d’autre part les directions, syndicats et commanditaires de la recherche, est au cœur de l’intervention : présent dès le début de la clinique de l’activité par le travail de négociation de la commande et de la demande, il a été renforcé par l’expérience répétée de la difficulté à promouvoir des transformations organisationnelles durables, au-delà de l’intervention, et de la nécessité d’instituer les nouvelles modalités de dialogue et de collaboration dans les fonctionnements ordinaires dans les milieux de travail. Bien sûr, cette direction n’est pas la seule que l’équipe clinique de l’activité ait empruntée. Forte depuis sa création d’une quarantaine de membres permanents ou associés (dont une dizaine seulement d’enseignants-chercheurs titulaires rattachés au CNAM), elle a développé des objets de recherche et des terrains d’intervention variés. Mais cette double préoccupation d’instiguer et d’étudier le développement produit dans et par le dialogue nous semble fondamentale dans cette approche.

A Pesquisa-Trans-Formação

Sabemos que os problemas na área da educação não são novos e não pretendemos discuti-los neste momento, mas eles representam o desafio necessário para fazer com que nós, pesquisadores, pensemos em formas de superação comprometidas social e eticamente.

Assim, um ponto que esteve presente e fortaleceu a unidade dos três cursos⁸ foi a compreensão da crítica e da autocrítica como essenciais em nossas pesquisas. Mas não crítica pela crítica, mas a crítica da Crítica Crítica, parafraseando Marx e Engels (Marx & Engels, 1844/2010), aquela que nos impulsiona e gera movimentos transformadores radicais, que se tornam práxis. Com isto afirmamos que é a realidade objetiva, com todas as suas contradições, que nos convoca para produzir conhecimento, sendo a força das demandas sociais impulsionadora dos objetivos das propostas de pesquisa apresentadas no curso em questão.

Mas como seguir este caminho?

Acreditamos que não se alcançam tais intentos de modo aleatório, por meio do senso comum, ou utilizando quaisquer propostas teóricas e metodológicas. Isto justifica a opção feita pelas três professoras de adotar - mesmo que com nuances e ênfases diferentes - o Materialismo Histórico Dialético como Método e a Psicologia Sócio Histórico Cultural⁹ como referência teórica. No caso das aulas por mim ministradas, tivemos a intenção de apresentar o Materialismo Histórico Dialético (MHD) como orientador da nossa perspectiva metodológica e a Psicologia Sócio-histórica (PSH) como arcabouço teórico da psicologia da educação, com a finalidade de sermos coerentes com o referencial proposto e enfatizando a proposição de Marx em sua tese 11 de que “Os filósofos têm apenas interpretado o mundo de diferentes maneiras. O que importa é transformá-lo”, apontamos a Pesquisa-Trans-Formação como a práxis a ser construída no processo de construção de nossas pesquisas.

Apoiados nesses pressupostos vemos a possibilidade de exercer a crítica como princípio metodológico, como afirma Mészáros (2010) e, assim, em nossas pesquisas, a não nos contentarmos com a superfície da realidade, indo para além da aparência, focando os processos, as mediações constitutivas dos fenômenos, as contradições, caminhando na direção da saturação das determinações que constituem a realidade estudada.

Mas quais elementos teóricos e metodológicos nos dão o suporte para efetivarmos este percurso de pesquisa?

Para desenvolvermos, mesmo que de modo breve esta questão, iniciamos afirmando como Netto (2011, p. 53), que “O método - o Materialismo Histórico e Dialético - implica, para Marx, uma determinada posição (perspectiva) do sujeito que pesquisa: aquela em que se põe o pesquisador para, na sua relação com o objeto, extrair dele as suas múltiplas determinações.”

Sabemos da impossibilidade, dado o contexto e porte deste artigo, de nos aprofundarmos na exposição do MHD; no entanto, optamos pela apresentação de algumas de suas categorias, entendendo que será o pensamento categorial que nos guiará em todo o processo de pesquisar-trans-formar, no caso focando a realidade educacional. Destacamos inicialmente o entendimento de categoria para o MHD:

The categories are theoretical constructs, abstractions that express the apprehension of the movement of the studied phenomenon. They shed light on and explain a certain zone of reality. It is safe to say that the categories guide our process of apprehension of the reality beyond appearance, helping us to produce knowledge beyond ideology which, like a "smokescreen", conceals it and makes it "opaque" in its superficiality.” (^{Aguiar et al., 2020}, p. 232).

Concordando com Lefebvre (1975, p. 172), afirmamos que em nossas pesquisas buscamos os movimentos, as “transições”, o que nos exige um pensamento vivo, jamais estático, que apreenda as relações na sua complexidade dialética.

Para dar conta desta empreitada recorremos a algumas categorias do MHD, como: contradição, mediação, historicidade e totalidade. A categoria contradição, juntamente com outras, será responsável pela compreensão do humano como histórico, social e singular ao mesmo tempo. Apoiados em ^{Aguiar e Ozella (2006}, p. 224), destacamos que:

O sujeito, constituído na e pela atividade, ao produzir sua forma humana de existência, revela - em todas as suas expressões- a historicidade social, a ideologia, as relações sociais, o modo de produção. Ao mesmo tempo que expressa sua singularidade, o novo que é capaz de produzir. ‘O que também nos leva a afirmar sua subjetividade historicamente construída’.

Isto posto, apresenta-se diante de nós uma realidade complexa a ser apreendida; Lefebvre (1975, p. 249) indica a necessidade de acompanharmos o movimento do real, sendo que tal movimento implica “continuidade e descontinuidade, aparecimento e choque de contrários, saltos qualitativos e superação."

É papel das categorias iluminar o movimento do real e, neste caso, ao recorrermos à categoria contradição, criamos melhores condições de nos afastarmos das compreensões dicotomizantes, naturalizantes, que advogam em prol da meritocracia, tão presente na nossa realidade educacional. Esta é a condição metodológica de entender e superar as dicotomias objetividade-subjetividade, social-individual, pensamento-linguagem, afeto-cognição etc., compreendendo que, na realidade concreta, existem relações que não são de identidade, nem de oposição irreconciliável, mas contraditórias. Deste modo, podemos pensar, com Vygotski¹⁰, que o humano “é quase social” e que nos cabe buscar a “gênese social do individual”. Podemos, assim, em nossas pesquisas, analisar os participantes não como um reflexo passivo das condições sociais, mas um ser ativo, agente, como aquele que, mediado por uma subjetividade dialeticamente constituída pelas e nas relações sociais, é capaz de transformar as condições materiais.

Tal movimento alude à categoria mediação, que nos permite compreender as relações em que os indivíduos, ao serem afetados pela realidade social, não o são de modo imediato. As determinações sociais, que nada mais são do que produtos humanos, devem ser entendidas como elementos da materialidade que se tornam, no processo de constituição do humano (objetivação-subjetivação), elementos essenciais do ser, configuradas criativamente por ele. Assim, no encontro com o indivíduo, a realidade do mundo social é mediada pela subjetividade histórica. Nos referimos a um tipo específico de relação de mediação: a relação dialética, em que os polos são diferentes, não mantêm uma relação de identidade, mas ao mesmo tempo se constituem mutuamente.

Para entendermos este movimento constitutivo do humano, de modo crítico, superando a dicotomia subjetividade-objetividade, compreendendo-as como pares dialéticos, outras categorias devem ser agregadas, como historicidade. Esta categoria nos permite abandonar como questão central “O que é a realidade”, substituindo-a por “Como ela se transformou?”, “Como se desenvolveu?” (Aguiar & Machado, 2016).

Vygotski, nos manuscritos de 1929, faz um alerta para a importância e o cuidado necessários para se trabalhar com a categoria historicidade. Ele afirma que não podemos nos deter na compreensão da cronologia dos fatos para o entendimento dos indivíduos, que devemos compreender a história como “Dialética geral das coisas”. Ainda seguindo o autor, para a compreensão histórica do ser humano, precisamos ter claro que o seu processo de desenvolvimento ocorre de forma dialética, ou seja, contraditoriamente, e sempre em relação à totalidade social. Esta categoria tem a intenção de explicitar que os fenômenos da realidade não se constituem numa simples sucessão cronológica de fatos, num movimento sem rumo, desgovernado. Pelo contrário, trata-se de um movimento determinado por relações de forças, dialeticamente articuladas, que se constituíram no decurso da existência de tal objeto (Lukács, 1979).

Esta categoria, articulada às outras, próprias do MHD, permitiram que Vygotski desenvolvesse sua concepção de desenvolvimento, essencial em nossas pesquisas e intervenções. Para ele é impossível a compreensão de desenvolvimento humano sem a noção de dialeticidade, contradição e historicidade, sendo que o autor deixa clara a sua crítica ao pensamento etapista linear e fragmentado. Vejamos:

Dominados pela noção de mudança evolucionária, a maioria dos pesquisadores em psicologia da criança ignora aqueles pontos de viragem, aquelas mudanças convulsivas e revolucionárias que são tão frequentes no desenvolvimento da criança. Para a mente ingênua, evolução e revolução parecem incompatíveis, e o desenvolvimento histórico só está ocorrendo enquanto segue em linha reta. (Vigotski, 2007, pp. 80-81).

A concepção acima critica, na radicalidade, a visão positivista de ciência e defende a necessidade da explicação dos fenômenos, superando análises meramente descritivas, que não apreendem as transições e suas mediações.

Recuperando o termo meritocracia já mencionado e a necessidade não apenas de que este seja negado, mas que seja explicitada sua falácia, avaliamos que não é difícil sermos seduzidos por ele se não trouxermos para nossa análise a categoria totalidade - sempre articulada às outras. A categoria totalidade, cumprindo seu papel de categoria, de ser uma lente que nos auxilia a apreender a realidade para além da sua aparência, nos alerta que o ponto de vista da totalidade é negar que a realidade seja estática, fixa, mas movimento constante, e que as partes se movimentam por contradição e se constituem formando novas partes que alteram o todo; que não podemos analisar um fato, um sujeito, descolado da totalidade social que dialética e historicamente o constitui. É importante lembrar que não existe uma totalidade absoluta, estática. Como afirma Luckács (2013), “Totalidade é complexo de complexos”. Assim, em nossas pesquisas com professores, a análise deve se dar à luz da totalidade possível de ser apreendida no momento: características da escola, projeto político pedagógico, políticas públicas para educação, condições sociais e econômicas etc., lembrando que, a todo momento, novos elementos surgem nessa totalidade, ao mesmo tempo em que gestam novas partes.

Considerando tais colocações, reiteramos a necessidade de explicitarmos e explicarmos a realidade se quisermos compreendê-la. Não sem motivo, lembramos da conhecida afirmação de ^{Vigotski (1930/2000}, p. 83), parafraseando Marx: “se as coisas fossem diretamente o que parecem, não seria necessária nenhuma pesquisa científica. Essas coisas deveriam ser registradas, contadas, mas não pesquisadas”. Se fosse assim, ressalta o autor, “toda ciência seria supérflua”. Mas como efetivar nossas pesquisas? Por onde começar o processo de apreensão do sujeito?

Nosso ponto de partida são as “significações” (^{Aguiar et al., 2020}, ²⁰²¹) produzidas pelos sujeitos, aqui entendidas como a articulação entre sentidos e significados, sendo nossa meta a apreensão do processo de constituição das significações e ressignificações. Lembramos aqui, baseados nas categorias do MHD e dos ensinamentos de ^{Vigotski (1930/2000}), que nos cabe analisar processos e não produtos.

O fato de não tratarmos o indivíduo de modo dicotomizado, fragmentado, nos leva a buscar formas de apreendê-lo na sua totalidade, historicidade e unicidade. Assim, consideramos impossível iniciar o processo analítico sem o entendimento de que todas as suas expressões são individuais e sociais ao mesmo tempo, que todas revelam sua singularidade e historicidade constituídas mutuamente.

Com este entendimento partimos das falas dos sujeitos, entendidas como significações; como objetivações que contêm os significados sociais como elementos constitutivos e, ao mesmo tempo, as idiossincrasias, afetos, elementos individuais próprios de cada indivíduo. Tais elementos coexistem e se constituem mutuamente, sem perder suas identidades, ou seja, configuram uma unidade de contrários.

Ainda que não seja o mote deste artigo (trataremos em outro artigo nesta mesma edição), destacamos que a forma de pesquisar coerente com os pressupostos teórico-metodológicos apresentados denomina-se Pesquisa-Trans-Formação, tendo por procedimento analítico os Núcleos de Significações.

PCCol - Critical Collaborative Research

It is important to begin by mentioning that, in Brazil, the critical collaborative approach to research was first discussed by ^{Magalhães (1990/2006}) who has been investigating this methodology for over thirty years, usually as part of projects in the field of educators’ education. This can be confirmed by looking at the vast amount of published texts about this topic, both alone (^{Magalhães, 1998,} 2007, ²⁰¹⁸) and with colleagues and followers (^{Celani & Magalhães, 2005}; ^{Magalhães & Liberali, 2004}; ^{Magalhães & Fidalgo, 2010}, 2019; ^{Magalhães, Ninin & Lessa, 2014}; ^{Ninin & Magalhães, 2017}; ^{Jones & Magalhães, 2020}, to quote but a few). Many professionals who, today work with the complexities of what we have come to know as PCCol (from the Portuguese, Pesquisa Crítica de Colaboração, or Critical Research of Collaboration, in a word-for-word translation), have initially worked with Magalhães, as colleagues, collaborators, supervisees, or in all of these positions at some stage in their professional lives. Many are Critical Applied Linguists, which means that they work with language matters (taking language as object and instrument), and analyze them in terms of their scope for organizing critical reasoning, which ^{Magalhães and Fidalgo (2010}, p. 329) have defined as a critical-reflective-thought-organizing type of language (CReThOTLa) - whose word choice clearly shows that our bases to think this linguistic instrument is ^{Freire (1970}, ¹⁹⁹², ¹⁹⁹⁶) and Vygotsky¹¹ (1924-1934). The former is followed here due to the notion of critical reflection as means to transforming society; the latter due to the idea that language organizes thought throughout our existence (^{Vygotsky, 1934/2009}). The CReThOTLa is the first of four concepts that I will further discuss in this paper.

Most of PCCol’s works are carried out in teacher education environments in which participants are either learning what kind of language this CReThOTLa is, or are mastering its use. Having - in most cases - been educated in transmissive undergraduate programs throughout the country, they often have the belief that it is the university’s job to think of theories that should solve practical problems, and it is the school teachers’ job to put these theories into practice (the classical thinker versus doer dichotomic view on professional development and research paradigm).

In order to try to move past this view, PCCol focuses on (linguistic) actions in the school, research, university environments (the social settings per se), probing into the words with a view to requesting for clarification or expansion (^{Ninin, 2018}) in such ways that everyone can feel respected, heard whilst experiencing moments of sense-meaning ressignification - which, in turn, promotes a locus where everyone can and probably will undergo some kind of critically-reflective-based transformation, and should promote loci of transformation for the others, through inter-agency engagements (^{Magalhães et aliae, 2021}), speaking at any time, and knowing that the listeners are maintaining a responsive attitude. In Russian, one might refer to this as слушать rather than слышать.

Here, we have another important term, i.e., responsive attitude, which results from attentive listening. This is a concept based on ^{Voloshinov (1929/2017}), which the research groups working with PCCol¹² understand as listening in order to really make sense of what is being said, and collaboratively use it in the meaning/knowledge construction process. It is the different from (and even the opposite of) simply hearing or listening with a view to waiting for the other’s turn to finish in order to take the turn and speak (in a movement that resembles a competition for the floor, a competition to prove who has the best answer, the strongest speech. This does not foster collaboration). PCCol is also against the notion that those in the University Academic World are the sole producers of knowledge that they then transmit to those in the School Academic World. As Freire stated time and time again in his work, people hold different ‘knowledges’. One is not better than the other, and together, both can bring about the change that is needed and desired in a given community.

With this view in mind, we clarify that responsive listening requires full attention and probing into words (i.e., asking questions about what is said) in order to better clarify what is not yet clear. Thus, it leads to the co-construction of signification and knowledge production. We stay as far away as possible from the idea that one person (the teacher, the teacher educator, for example) should bring a readymade concept that will be used by the entire group because this often leads to parroting rather than knowledge production. As such, it cannot lead to the transformation of practices either - and this is the ultimate goal that we chase in PCCol. I will not say much more about the importance of language in the PCCol framework, as Fidalgo and Magalhães’s paper in this special issue focuses mostly on this aspect of the methodology, and does so by bringing examples from the course taught - i.e., examples of interactions and how knowledge is co-constructed within these.

Transformation of practices is the third concept that PCColers use - actually, it is what they pursue. When explaining the dialectical law of transformation of quantity into quality, ^{Konder (1981/2014}, p. 38) states that,

The transformation of the whole is only actually carried out after an accumulation of changes in the parts that compose it. Sector, quantitative changes occur, and then there is a critical moment that points to the qualitative transformation of the totality.

The whole is therefore transformed when each of its components has been transformed as well - (and a "vice-versa " can apply here). PCColers look at this idea in more than one level - as does ^{Konder (1981/2014}, p.38),

(…) the transformation of the whole is more complicated than the transformation of each element that composes it. And we must also highlight something else: Each totality has its own way of changing; transformation conditions vary depending on the characteristics of the totality and of the specific process.

When I state that Konder’s view is similar to that of researchers working with PCCol, it is because the latter also see levels of possibilities of transformation. The idea is that the totality would change, i.e., the entire school, all the participants in an investigation/educator education setting (including the researchers themselves). However, it does not happen all at once, for all the participants - especially because each participant is a changeable unit, undergoing their own processes of development that will, at the same time, promote transformations on others (by means of questions and other types of interventions (^{Ninin, 2018})), and therefore, on the whole. There are changes within changes, and these ultimately transform the whole.

At the specific, individual level, transformation seems to follow steps such as the following for most people:

(1) They firstly, reject what they hear and see because they often think that ‘It is precisely what they have been doing for many years - i.e., there is nothing new -.” This mostly happens when a researcher enters the school with a project to be developed there. It is not so common when the project was designed with all the members of the community, which will also carry it out, participating on every step of the way. Still, it is a possible stage seen in the transformation process, especially because some researchers are pressed by time constraints that will not allow for the project to be co-designed by all members of the researched community.

(2) Then, participants begin to understand the difference or the benefits of the new process/ideas/project proposed by the group of colleagues with(out) researchers - which are often actually outsiders, working their way through the paths of acceptance in the school environment. And because the method requires that researchers (when outsiders) firstly try to understand the needs of the community (the other participants), by what ^{Freire (1970}) called an immersion in reality, most people eventually feel comfortable to voice their expectations, their fears, and propose themes for discussion, etc. As participants begin to understand, they also begin to repeat concepts in their speeches, which seems to be a way of checking if they have really understood these new meanings that are being constructed.

(3) Here, each of them, at their own pace, seems to have internalized the ideas produced by the group - and is, at this point in time, and agent of change (^{Magalhães et al. 2021}) as well; i.e., they are collaborating with the individual changes of colleagues, are actively engaged in their own changing process, and this is becoming very evident in the community - i.e. the totality is changing - in theory, in the way participants speak. However, not everyone can already implement the changes that they advocate for. So, practice may not have (fully) changed yet.

An example of this is the following: in the classroom, teacher A’s actions (lesson plans, lesson deliveries, the way they deal with students’ mistakes, assessment forms) may still be the same as before, showing their strong foundation on transmissive teaching approaches, which ^{Freire referred to with the banking metaphor (1970}), even though this very teacher may be quite eloquent in defending more inclusive, collaborative, agentive, democratic and decolonizing classroom practices. In other words, a participant speaks very fluently of aspects and benefits of the new ideas constructed by the group through the collaborative dialectical process that organizes PCCol, but no change is yet seen in their individual practice per se, mainly because this person has not totally internalized the transformation that they now support.

(4) Eventually, the project’s participants will see that unit-totalities are changing, and so is the entire community or system (the school, for example). However, this totality is not very often seen in Master’s or even Doctorate’s projects due to the time constraints - which, in Brazil is of two and four years respectively. It is much more common in long-term projects and partnerships between members of the group (for example, in school support groups, in school-university jointly designed projects).

Due to the scope and constraints of a paper such as this one, it is not possible to discuss all the concepts that compose the PCCol methodology especially considering that it is such a complex research and educator’s education methodology. So, some selections have to be made. And I have selected to close my part in this paper with the Reflective Cycle (^{Smyth, 1992}) - which is a very important instrument that enables responsive listening, the use and development of the critical-reflective-thought-organizing type of language, and therefore, will allow for transformation to take place - being actually an instrument that allows us to see in which of the above mentioned stages each participant is. Smyth argues that there are four stages to the reflective cycle: Describing, Informing, Confronting and Reconstructing - and we must emphasize that, precisely because it is envisaged in a dialectical perspective, the cycle is not linear, i.e. participants are not expected (actually should not) follow from one stage to the next - but move to and fro, reacting responsively to each other’s questions and answers (responsive listening).

^{Smyth (1992}, p. 296) argues that:

The rationale [behind the describing stage] is that if teachers¹³ can create a text that comprises the elements of their teaching as a prelude to problematizing it, then there is a likelihood that they will have the basis upon which to engage in dialogue with one another so as to see how their consciousness was formed and how it might be changed.

^{Liberali (2008}) explains that the language that is most common in the description phase is one that aims at discovering what the person does, through the analyses of facts that occur. This, however, should not include judgements, i.e., analyzing the context and the actions takes place through the concrete description of the action with a view to seeing what underlies them. Some common linguistic tools used here are questions that ask for exemplification and expansion (^{Ninin, 2018}). The latter includes action verbs - how did you explain X; what were the students’ tasks - as well as contextual elements - how many students were there in the class? How were they seated? How old are they?

^{Smyth (1992}, p. 297) also says that:

By whatever term we choose to describe them, when teachers engage in the activity of analyzing descriptions of their teaching in order to make a series of "it looks as if..." statements, then they are really recapturing the pedagogical principles of what it is they do.

Recapturing, retrieving or understanding the pedagogical principles of what it is that we do is what Informing - the second phase - is all about. And this can be fulfilled when the group revisits the Describing phase with a view to understanding what kind of theories participants have constructed throughout their lives (and follow either consciously or not), i.e., with a view to understanding how these theories influence the way they act. According to ^{Liberali (2008}) in this stage we seek to discover what the meanings of our actions are. We could say that we aim at discovering where these actions are rooted.

As for the third stage, ^{Smyth (1992}, p. 299) argues that:

Theorizing and describing one's practice is one thing, but being able to subject those theories to a form of interrogation and questioning that establishes something about their legitimacy and legacy is altogether another matter. Yet, if we are to be clear about what it is that we do as educators and why we do it, then it is imperative that we move to this stage. Above all, we need to regard the views we hold about teaching not as idiosyncratic preferences, but rather as the product of deeply entrenched cultural norms of which we may not even be aware.

The interrogation and questioning to which we subject our practices in this phase aim at finding out if the practices actually allow for the students that we have before us to be the critical citizens that we had in mind when we planned the course, the lesson. What are the effects on the others before us, and on ourselves as well?

The fourth stage may be an almost natural consequence of all the others (though there is no linearity in the four stages, as I have stated previsously). As the group moves forwards and backwards between each phase, they begin to think of different ways of action. To ^{Smyth (1992}, p. 299-300),

Being able to locate oneself both personally and professionally in history so as to understand the forces that have come to determine one's existence is the hallmark of a teacher who has been able to harness the reflective process so as to begin to act on the world in a way that amounts to changing it. This amounts to being able to see teaching realities not as immutable givens but as realities defined by others and as essentially contestable.

By following this path, this frame, PCCol aims at identifying the contradictions that cannot be captured simply by taking part in a meeting without a clear focus on the language that is constituting each step of the meeting’s organization - and the many layers of this language. As ^{Konder (1981/2014}, p. 43) puts it,

In order to recognize the totalities in which the reality is actually bound (…) the dialectical thought is forced to a patient work: it is forced to gradually identify, at great effort, the concrete contradictions and the specific mediations that constitute the “tissue” of each totality, what actually brings each totality to life.

Por restrições de espaço, o enfoque desta seção do presente artigo não poderá tratar de todas as nuances que constituem a PCCol. No entanto, outro texto neste mesmo volume, escrito por Fidalgo e Magalhães, traz outros aspectos importantes, podendo, portanto, esclarecer um pouco mais sobre a metodologia e os procedimentos adotados, além de suas bases teóricas. Em seguida, trataremos dos pontos em comum entre as três metodologias discutidas nesse artigo e, posteriormente, de algumas das diferenças que identificamos.

Convergences