2. Rough Guide to Action Research
This slide gives Isobelās personal view,
as a busy person doing research āon the sideā
Action Research is very good, BUT ā¦
ā¢ Even experienced researchers find it demanding.
ā¢ I view it as an aspiration or an ideal, not a benchmark.
ā¢ When I do bits of Action Research, thatās good.
ā¢ When I donāt, I explain:
ā Why Action research would have been better.
ā What I actually did, and why (no time, thought of it too late...)
ā How my results might have been better.
ā What Iād do next timeā¦
3. ACTION RESEARCH (McNiff et al 1996)
Action research is a method devised for professionals
who wanted to:
ā¢ improve their own practice.
ā¢ contribute to public knowledge about how to do their job.
Action research is now used for other research problems:
wherever objective logic alone cannot provide the answers.
Because it requires subjective interpretation of events,
action research must maintain the highest quality of:
ā¢ enquiry
ā¢ action
ā¢ validation
ā¢ results
4. ENQUIRY
Enquiry must be systematic and critical.
We ask the research question: āHow can I improve ...?ā
As research proceeds we refine the question.
A systematic plan documents what we are looking for.
The plan changes as we learn. We must explain why.
In order to be critical, we must be willing to change:
ā¢ what we do, how we do it and why.
ā¢ how we think and what we pay attention to.
We must be willing to listen and accept other peopleās viewpoints.
Seek ideas / suggestions / theories / models / problems / issues from:
ā¢ the literature (textbooks, academic journals, the law, the press...
ā¢ other practitioners (colleagues, people in other professions,...
ā¢ beneficiaries (clients/users)
5. ACTION
Action must be involved, informed and overtly intentional.
As an action researcher, you should:
ā¢ Be committed to a worthwhile purpose. Explore and defend values.
ā¢ Respectfully involve others as collaborators (not subjects).
ā¢ Collect valid data according to a systematic plan.
ā¢ Monitor the data as it is collected and use it to:
ā¢ Identify issues, make claims, suggest theories and models
ā¢ Amend research plan to test new issues / claims / theories / models.
ā¢ Explore new issues, construct and test new theories and models.
ā¢ Regularly write:
ā authentic descriptions of researcherās actions and feelings.
ā explanations of possible meanings + motives.
6. VALIDATION
Self validation:
ā¢ Look back at early questions + assumptions. What has changed?
ā¢ Can you now live out your values more effectively now?
ā¢ Can you rationally describe your professional learning?
Peer validation: Do colleagues take your new knowledge seriously?
Up-liner validation: Can you prove to managers that your way is better?
Can you convince them to support dissemination of your work?
Client validation: Do customers see a difference? /get better service?
Academic validation: Start by presenting your ideas to a local interest
group.
ā¢ Re-read McNiff et al chapter 7, before trying to publish.
ā¢ Join with others to publish at conference > in refereed journal.
General public:
ā¢ Are any of your ideas more widely applicable / interesting?
ā¢ Share ideas with friends / family
ā¢ Learn to resolve potential misunderstandings.
7. VALIDATION GROUP
WiIl people work together to validate your work?
ā¢ Find people: local expert, supporters, critical
friend, independent person.
ā¢ Prepare + circulate a short report (1-2pp) on
context, aims, method, outcome.
ā¢ Present evidence to support your claims at a
meeting (1 hour approx.)
Ask group members to:
ā¢ Identify problems / objections.
ā¢ Set conditions.
ā¢ Recommend next actions.
8. VALIDATION CRITERIA
1. Intention. Context explained? / question developed? / rationale
clarified?
2. Plan. Is the link between reflection + action established? /
research process transparent? / values demonstrated in practice?
3. Collaborate. Is research role transparent? / collaborative intent
realised?
Are ethical principles applied?
4. Act. Was comprehensive data collected? from different sources?
Patterns + contradictions appreciated? Analysis exposed to critique?
Alternatives considered?
5. Evaluate. Are claims important? Patterns + contradictions appreciated?
Findings related to critical professional discussion?
Explanations convincing+ authenticated? Generate further questions?
6. Report. Terms of reference? Structure? Minimal jargon? Succinct?
Comprehensive? Identify strengths + weaknesses?
Spells out implications? Critical evaluation info. from other sources?
Enough references for readers to follow up their own interests?
9. RESULTS
Results must be clarified and made public.
ā¢ Make links between new knowledge and existing knowledge.
ā¢ State the researcherās past experience, acknowledge potential bias.
Make claims and indicate:
ā¢ The range of situations in which they have been tested.
ā¢ The strength of the results, identifying potential risks.
ā¢ A range of other situations to which they might also apply.
Examine your claims against evidence and other peopleās judgement.
ā¢ Assemble evidence to support each claim.
ā¢ Identify arguments against each claim and answer them.
ā¢ Use qualitative results to offer explanations and viewpoints.
ā¢ Use quantitative results (statistical concepts) to assess confidence.
ā¢ Use rich explanations to convey meaning
(self-reflection, dialogue, narrative).
10. āIā am central to action research
Traditionally science expected the researcher to:
ā¢ objectively, impersonally stand outside the situation under
observation
ā¢ logically, unemotionally interpret results, avoiding any personal bias
Action research asks questions that cannot be answered in this way.
ā¢ Questions like : āHow can I improve the usability of the software I
build?ā
ā¢ and hence: āHow can we help everyone to build more usable
software?ā
I (the researcher) am committed to this project.
ā¢ From the start, I give it meaning.
ā¢ Throughout the enquiry I dedicate time and effort.
ā¢ Throughout action I am also thinking about the research.
ā¢ When I first publish my results, I lay my reputation on the line.
ā¢ If my answers are important Iāll want to convince other people.
11. ACTION RESEARCH IS AN
HEROIC JOURNEY
Enquiry is asking questions for which nobody knows the answer.
ā¢ I hold myself in a state of uncertainty, so I am open to new answers.
ā¢ I must admit that some things Iāve been doing have not been helpful.
ā¢ I expect that some of my treasured assumptions will be proved wrong.
Action documents all my mistakes, misunderstandings and biases,.
ā¢ I must have (and show) respect for viewpoints that I donāt agree with.
ā¢ I still have to stand my ground when a point of principle is at stake.
Results give a lot of myself in the theories, models and claims I publish.
ā¢ I expose my cherished results to criticism
(some of which will not be reasonable).
ā¢ I justify claims with the best evidence I can get (it is never enough)
ā¢ I expose my motives and reflect on how they influence my actions.
ā¢ Always expose myself to validation by my own critical faculties.
12. ACTION RESEARCH OFFERS
NEW OPPORTUNITIES
I may struggle on the journey, but at the end I will achieve:
ā¢ Improvements to my working practice,
ā¢ Some contribution to work in my profession,
ā¢ The ability to go on and achieve more.
ā¢ Learning many interesting useful things.
ā¢ Improving my performance at work.
ā¢ Confidence that Iām doing the best job I possibly can.
ā¢ Knowing mistakes, misunderstanding & bias are inevitable.
ā¢ Ability to respond robustly & constructively to problems
& confrontation.
ā¢ Ability to help others improve their performance at work.
ā¢ Experience of several important aspects of management.