Linking families, approaches and techniques
It should be stressed that the various families, approaches and techniques identified here do not map simply on to each other. Thus, it is possible to use
to improve educational practice. Action is undertaken to understand, evaluate and change.
(Costello 2003: 5)
Box 3.6 Two examples of action research projects
The type of action research proposed was that of practical-deliberative action research, where researchers and practitioners come together to identify potential problems, underlying causes and possible interven-tions. The aim is to move towards a form of action research which is concerned with development and change, participatory action research . . . A conventional action research approach was envisaged to:
• examine the nature of the problem situation;
• devise an appropriate product-based intervention;
• trial this (and the supporting mechanisms);
• evaluate the impact.
Focus groups, scenario planning and soft systems techniques (including use of rich pictures) were variously used to support shared discussion during the initial consideration of the problem and possible interventions.
Similar techniques were used to reflect on lessons learned at the evalu-ation stages.
(Source: Rowley et al. 2004: 239) Mr B . . . manages a team of 19 staff. At regular meetings, Mr B requests contributions from the group that focus on work undertaken, progress made, issues and problems that arise, etc. Mr B is keen to explore the role his questioning plays in enhancing the group’s learning and devel-opment . . . He would like to find out whether his own perceptions of his questioning are confirmed through research and so decides to initiate a project . . . He decides to gather research data using two methods. The first involves a senior colleague observing his questioning during meet-ings in order to ascertain the number and nature of the questions asked.
Mr B devises an observation chart using a category system that focuses on: open questions; closed questions; affective questions (‘How do you feel about . . .?’); probing questions (‘What aspects of your behaviour do you think might be relevant here?’); checking questions (‘What you plan to do is . . . Is that right?’); and reflective questions (‘In what way were your colleagues’ questions confusing?’). He asks his colleague to indi-cate on the data sheet provided how many questions are asked in each category.
(Source: Costello 2003: 51–3)
Action research is an increasingly popular approach among small-scale researchers in the social sciences, particularly for those working in professional areas such as education, health and social care. It is well suited to the needs of people conducting research in their workplaces, and who have a focus on improving aspects of their own and their colleagues’ practices. For example, the teacher who is concerned to improve performance in the classroom may find action research useful because it offers a systematic approach to the defin-ition, solution and evaluation of problems and concerns.
Yet, action research is also an important approach for those with wider con-cerns for social justice. It lends itself to the direct involvement and collabor-ation of those whom it is designed to benefit. This is particularly the case for participatory action research, which is not designed and undertaken by research ‘experts’ alone, but in partnership with people who are involved in the issues that the research is addressing. In some fields of study, such as mental health or social work, user involvement may even be a requirement.
Box 3.6 (facing page) summarizes two contrasting examples of action research, one from further education, the other from a commercial company. Box 3.7 lists seven criteria distinguishing action research from other approaches.
From these descriptions, you may have formed the impression that action research can be a very demanding, but also very rewarding, research approach.
For this reason, it should not be lightly engaged in, and is probably inappropriate for most small-scale research projects. Box 3.8 identifies a num-ber of inappropriate uses of action research.
Box 3.7 Criteria distinguishing action research
We have selected seven criteria to distinguish different types of action research, and would argue that these seven, in dynamic interaction, distinguish action research from other methodologies . . . Action research:
1 is educative;
2 deals with individuals as members of social groups;
3 is problem-focused, context-specific and future-orientated;
4 involves a change intervention;
5 aims at improvement and involvement;
6 involves a cyclic process in which research, action and evaluation are interlinked;
7 is founded on a research relationship in which those involved are partici-pants in the change process.
(Source: Hart and Bond 1995: 37–8)
Action research is clearly a very applied approach, one which could also be seen as experimental. It offers a research design which links the research pro-cess closely to its context, and is predicated upon the idea of research having a practical purpose in view and leading to change. As the diagram in Box 3.9 indicates, it also fits well with the idea of the research process as a spiral activity, going through repeated cycles and changing each time.
See the section on Getting a flavour of possibilities in Chapter 1.
For these reasons, action research is likely to involve an extensive compon-ent of fieldwork, as opposed to deskwork. How might it be located, however, with reference to the distinction between quantitative and qualitative strategies? Try Exercise 3.1 at the end of this chapter.
If you have concluded that action research is chiefly or necessarily qualita-tive, you might like to look again at the second example of action research given in Box 3.6. Would you say that this project adopted a qualitative strat-egy, either wholly or in part?
Box 3.8 Inappropriate uses of action research
Never use action research to:
1 Drive an unpopular policy or initiative through.
2 Experiment with different solutions without thinking through very care-fully their soundness and the ethics involved.
3 Manipulate employees or practitioners into thinking they have contributed to a policy decision when it has already been made.
4 Try to bring a dysfunctional team or workgroup together (whether or not they actually are dysfunctional, any doubts you may have suggest you need to examine your ‘systems’ first, before engaging in a time-consuming and potentially disruptive project).
5 Bolster a flagging career. Action research will expose any weaknesses you may have extremely quickly!
(Source: adapted from Morton-Cooper 2000: 24–5)