Part 3 Application to this specific project.
Choice of subject
Choice of Methodology
Choice of methods
A statement of research ethics
Choice of subject
The subject of Action Research and its possible application to distributed communities was chosen because it coincides with the researcher's personal and professional interests, being directly relevant to work practice and potentially offering a powerful means of structuring work to benefit facilitators and communities.
Choice of Methodology
Having chosen AR as a subject, what might be the best methodology to employ in the investigation of it? A brief consideration of using any alternative to AR itself leads to no serious argument for doing so, while the advantages of learning about a subject through doing it are compelling. The justification for employing an AR methodology thus stands almost tautologically in the circumstances.
Choice of methods
It being noted earlier that AR employs a bit of a 'pick and mix' attitude to methods, what restrictions and obligations are implied? At the core of AR values we have action for improvement, iterative cycles, reflection, collaboration and an emphasis on qualitative data collection. So the methods selected flowing from these are likely to include
*the implementation of positive, practical actions with a genuine intention to make improvements.
This would exclude the use of purely experimental research and of control groups who are deliberately excluded from the possibility of benefit.
*reflective thought rather than mechanistic thinking.
The researcher is obliged to engage in deep self questioning, to continually revisit the aims and underpinning values of the research, and to seek out alternative viewpoints by making room for disparate voices.
*a structured plan which enables feedback of findings from one cycle into the planning of a future cycle
*a striving to involve colleagues and proximal groups in the research process
*inclusion of data collection techniques which produce rich qualitative data such as captured conversation, open questionnaires interviews and observations.
*triangulation of findings due to the subjectivity of interpretive methods and unrepresentative samples.
A statement of research ethics
I will undertake each cycle or phase of research with a genuine intent to make improvements which I hope will bring benefit to myself and/or to others. Should it become apparent either to myself or as expressed by others that the action taken is having an opposite effect then I will abandon that cycle prematurely or take steps to mitigate the damage if the benefits are thought to substantially outweigh the disadvantages.
I will not take actions and decisions lightly, but after having given them serious reflective thought including an exploration of my own assumptions and motives.
I value the thoughts and opinions of others especially where they disagree with my own, and will endeavor to make space for them to be reported as a diversity with equal status.
Where personal writing is collected as data from anywhere other than fully public spaces, then permission to publish will be sought in each case, and anonymity will be offered as an option. In the case of data already published in public spaces where the implication of fair use is already granted, then I will ensure that the correct attribution remains attached to the author's words but also be prepared to remove any such reference upon request, even after publication of my work.
Choice of subject
Choice of Methodology
Choice of methods
A statement of research ethics
Choice of subject
The subject of Action Research and its possible application to distributed communities was chosen because it coincides with the researcher's personal and professional interests, being directly relevant to work practice and potentially offering a powerful means of structuring work to benefit facilitators and communities.
Choice of Methodology
Having chosen AR as a subject, what might be the best methodology to employ in the investigation of it? A brief consideration of using any alternative to AR itself leads to no serious argument for doing so, while the advantages of learning about a subject through doing it are compelling. The justification for employing an AR methodology thus stands almost tautologically in the circumstances.
Choice of methods
It being noted earlier that AR employs a bit of a 'pick and mix' attitude to methods, what restrictions and obligations are implied? At the core of AR values we have action for improvement, iterative cycles, reflection, collaboration and an emphasis on qualitative data collection. So the methods selected flowing from these are likely to include
*the implementation of positive, practical actions with a genuine intention to make improvements.
This would exclude the use of purely experimental research and of control groups who are deliberately excluded from the possibility of benefit.
*reflective thought rather than mechanistic thinking.
The researcher is obliged to engage in deep self questioning, to continually revisit the aims and underpinning values of the research, and to seek out alternative viewpoints by making room for disparate voices.
*a structured plan which enables feedback of findings from one cycle into the planning of a future cycle
*a striving to involve colleagues and proximal groups in the research process
*inclusion of data collection techniques which produce rich qualitative data such as captured conversation, open questionnaires interviews and observations.
*triangulation of findings due to the subjectivity of interpretive methods and unrepresentative samples.
A statement of research ethics
I will undertake each cycle or phase of research with a genuine intent to make improvements which I hope will bring benefit to myself and/or to others. Should it become apparent either to myself or as expressed by others that the action taken is having an opposite effect then I will abandon that cycle prematurely or take steps to mitigate the damage if the benefits are thought to substantially outweigh the disadvantages.
I will not take actions and decisions lightly, but after having given them serious reflective thought including an exploration of my own assumptions and motives.
I value the thoughts and opinions of others especially where they disagree with my own, and will endeavor to make space for them to be reported as a diversity with equal status.
Where personal writing is collected as data from anywhere other than fully public spaces, then permission to publish will be sought in each case, and anonymity will be offered as an option. In the case of data already published in public spaces where the implication of fair use is already granted, then I will ensure that the correct attribution remains attached to the author's words but also be prepared to remove any such reference upon request, even after publication of my work.