Part 2 Methodology, methods and practice
Methodology and methods.
The relationship between methods and methodologies can be likened to that between tactics and strategies. So the methodology of Action Research encompasses the general principles and guidelines, whereas the methods are the specific techniques employed. So what are the guiding principles of an Action Research methodology? At its outset, the first kind of activity bearing the name was conducted by Kurt Lewin, and consisted of large projects in which the key differentiation from other types of research is the objective of taking action which improves a social situation, on the scale of social engineering, but without the modern negative connotation.
"It is a type of action-research..... Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice" (Lewin 1946, reproduced in Lewin 1948: 202-3)
Lewin also depicted the structure of action research as a spiral, so the central tenets of "action" and "cycles" were already in place. After a decline in favour for government scale research, the AR methodology was taken up in later decades by educationalists and teacher trainers in order to provide a convenient way for professionals to improve their own practice in an isolated environment. But a change in scale is often accompanied by a change in internal quality, and the newer, smaller scale AR is a refined version of the original. It is reasonable to expect that further shifts in context, such as to distributed communities, may also entail some revision of methodology, but will take as it's starting point, principles from the more modern educationalist action research rather than the original Lewin model.
Six principles
Winter (1989) names six key principles:
Table
Winter's principle - My interpretation
1) Reflexive critique - Reflecting on issues and processes to make explicit the interpretations, biases and assumptions
2) Dialectical critique - Dialectical as in dialogue, but also focussing on contradictions to effect change.
3) Collaborative Resource - Participation and co-research
4) Risk - Action Researchers expose their ideas and reflections to criticism and take actions which risk failure in order to lean.
5) Plural Structure - Reports contain a plurality of voices reflecting diverse opinions and ongoing discussion.
6) Theory, Practice, Transformation - Theory and practice informing each other in turn as an intertwined transformative process.
Four myths
It has been my observation that whenever a series of educationalists get hold of an idea and pass it on there is always a danger that it will degenerate through reductionism and end up as a token, shallow caricature of the original. And so many false ideas are in current circulation pertaining to what AR should and shouldn't consist of.
Kock (1997) depicts four popular myths about action research methodology:
(1) That action research is necessarily opposed to positivism;
(2) That, in order to allow for "true emergence" of research findings, action research should begin without a clear research framework;
(3) That action research is necessarily a qualitative research approach;
(4) That action research, due to usually not relying on heavy statistical analysis, allows for fast and easy data collection and analysis.
The counters to which can be deduced as follows:
1) Positivism is not ruled out in an action research approach
2) The use of some quantitative methods in data analysis is valid alongside the qualitative.
3) Even emergent Action Research needs to be designed.
4) Qualitative data is not necessarily easier to collect and analyse.
Paradigms and methods
The methods appropriate to AR are determined from the philosophical methodology, and from the pragmatics of doing small scale research with actions for improvement.
In trying to trace how methods are meant to be derived from methodology I decided to look at the three paradigms into which any methodology might be situated according to O'Brien (2001) - Logical Positivist, Interpretive and Pragmatic.
A Logical Positivist outlook might lead to research methods including:
Almost exclusively Quantitative data, Multiple choice surveys, census data, computational analysis, statistically representative samples, strictly defined research questions, control groups.
Interpretive methods include:
Observation, shadowing, case study, understanding people by being amongst them.
Pragmatic research methods include:
open questionnaires, researcher reflections as data, focus groups, evolving research questions, inclusivity.
Practice.
The author initiated a discussion amongst peers setting out on AR projects, by suggesting the creation of an editable document within the Learning Management System (LMS) in use. This resulted in the beginning of a practical discussion of the advantages and disadvantages to adopting an AR approach, an extract from which is appended
From this emerged compelling reasons for choosing an AR methodology where resources are limited, the scale of research is small, and the aim of a project is to improve practice.
Methodology and methods.
The relationship between methods and methodologies can be likened to that between tactics and strategies. So the methodology of Action Research encompasses the general principles and guidelines, whereas the methods are the specific techniques employed. So what are the guiding principles of an Action Research methodology? At its outset, the first kind of activity bearing the name was conducted by Kurt Lewin, and consisted of large projects in which the key differentiation from other types of research is the objective of taking action which improves a social situation, on the scale of social engineering, but without the modern negative connotation.
"It is a type of action-research..... Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice" (Lewin 1946, reproduced in Lewin 1948: 202-3)
Lewin also depicted the structure of action research as a spiral, so the central tenets of "action" and "cycles" were already in place. After a decline in favour for government scale research, the AR methodology was taken up in later decades by educationalists and teacher trainers in order to provide a convenient way for professionals to improve their own practice in an isolated environment. But a change in scale is often accompanied by a change in internal quality, and the newer, smaller scale AR is a refined version of the original. It is reasonable to expect that further shifts in context, such as to distributed communities, may also entail some revision of methodology, but will take as it's starting point, principles from the more modern educationalist action research rather than the original Lewin model.
Six principles
Winter (1989) names six key principles:
Table
Winter's principle - My interpretation
1) Reflexive critique - Reflecting on issues and processes to make explicit the interpretations, biases and assumptions
2) Dialectical critique - Dialectical as in dialogue, but also focussing on contradictions to effect change.
3) Collaborative Resource - Participation and co-research
4) Risk - Action Researchers expose their ideas and reflections to criticism and take actions which risk failure in order to lean.
5) Plural Structure - Reports contain a plurality of voices reflecting diverse opinions and ongoing discussion.
6) Theory, Practice, Transformation - Theory and practice informing each other in turn as an intertwined transformative process.
Four myths
It has been my observation that whenever a series of educationalists get hold of an idea and pass it on there is always a danger that it will degenerate through reductionism and end up as a token, shallow caricature of the original. And so many false ideas are in current circulation pertaining to what AR should and shouldn't consist of.
Kock (1997) depicts four popular myths about action research methodology:
(1) That action research is necessarily opposed to positivism;
(2) That, in order to allow for "true emergence" of research findings, action research should begin without a clear research framework;
(3) That action research is necessarily a qualitative research approach;
(4) That action research, due to usually not relying on heavy statistical analysis, allows for fast and easy data collection and analysis.
The counters to which can be deduced as follows:
1) Positivism is not ruled out in an action research approach
2) The use of some quantitative methods in data analysis is valid alongside the qualitative.
3) Even emergent Action Research needs to be designed.
4) Qualitative data is not necessarily easier to collect and analyse.
Paradigms and methods
The methods appropriate to AR are determined from the philosophical methodology, and from the pragmatics of doing small scale research with actions for improvement.
In trying to trace how methods are meant to be derived from methodology I decided to look at the three paradigms into which any methodology might be situated according to O'Brien (2001) - Logical Positivist, Interpretive and Pragmatic.
A Logical Positivist outlook might lead to research methods including:
Almost exclusively Quantitative data, Multiple choice surveys, census data, computational analysis, statistically representative samples, strictly defined research questions, control groups.
Interpretive methods include:
Observation, shadowing, case study, understanding people by being amongst them.
Pragmatic research methods include:
open questionnaires, researcher reflections as data, focus groups, evolving research questions, inclusivity.
Practice.
The author initiated a discussion amongst peers setting out on AR projects, by suggesting the creation of an editable document within the Learning Management System (LMS) in use. This resulted in the beginning of a practical discussion of the advantages and disadvantages to adopting an AR approach, an extract from which is appended
From this emerged compelling reasons for choosing an AR methodology where resources are limited, the scale of research is small, and the aim of a project is to improve practice.