The traditional form of research involves the use of the scientific method. This is based on the observation and description of phenomenon. The scientist then formulates a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. The hypothesis can be used to make predictions about this phenomena or to predict the existence of other phenomena. This is then tested by experimentation or observation. These experiments are rigourously planned to ensure a 'fair test'. Results must be repeatable by other scientists to be seen as valid. (Wolf)
Hypothesis are then built up to make theories about phenomena. Wolf also says "experiment is supreme". This is to say that if a theory is contradicted by experimental results then it must be modified to explain these. If a theory is not testable by scientific experimentation then, according to Wolf, it is not a scientific theory.
Wolf says explicitly:
" Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory"
This is one of the aspects of the traditional scientific method that would make me uneasy with this approach in my context. Even though one might attempt to remove oneself from the data in this way subjective selection still comes into play. For example choices must still be made of which data to collect.
However he does concede that the scientific method is not universally applicable:
"There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again.. "
In particular he suggests this can apply in "social interactions between people". His stress on the phrase 'between people" in this context reflects that the study of social interactions between animals is seen as a valid form of 'hard' scientific research. This is contrasted with what 'hard' scientists such as Wolf (a physicist) see as the 'soft' sciences such as sociology, psychology etc.
'Hard' sciences tend to rely on quantitative, numerical data such as measurements, statistics, observations of change over measured time.
In the social sciences this is viewed rather differently.
"The way we typically define them, we call data 'quantitative' if it is in numerical form and 'qualitative' if it is not."
(Trochim, 2005)
Qualitative data can be seen as having greater validity in this field because it can provide a more 'nuanced' understanding of situations
Trochim sees the debate between the validity of the two kinds of data as less than helpful and contends that, in social sciences at least,
"All quantitative data is based upon qualitative judgments; and all qualitative data can be described and manipulated numerically"
Here I find myself agreeing with him, in social sciences the demarcation between the forms of data is not so clear cut as it is often portrayed. As I observed before choices about data - its collection, analysis, even which data to collect, are all deeply influenced by the researcher's subjective decisions.
Action enquiry may use either or both kinds of data in order to explore a phenomenon.
Action research/enquiry sits in the field of naturalistic approaches to educational and social science research. This approach according to Cohen et al (2000) is based on the anti-positivist view. In the social sciences there has been a rejection in recent years of the positivist, scientific view of social and educational research. This move away from the general scientific approach has been, in part, a rejection of its ability to explain or describe people's experiences and a denial of the possibility of the feelings and values of the researcher as influential factors in such research. There has been a recognition that in order to explain the complexities of educational interactions it may be advisable to examine socio-political contexts both of the situation and of the researcher. As an action enquirer I am being encouraged to include my examination of myself in the picture. This is where the validity of reflective practice and the use of the learning journal comes into play.
Kurt Lewin is usually credited with inventing the term action research. He defined it as
" a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action, and research leading to social action." (Lewin 1948)
It is Lewin who first suggests the spiral nature of this form of research. He suggested that there should be a fact finding phase in the planning stage where the proposed investigation should be explored and from this an over-all plan and a proposed action will emerge. This should be implemented and then reviewed in a further fact finding stage. This review feeds into the planning for the second cycle.
However, reliance on the spiral method does not by and of itself make an enquiry into a piece of action research. I feel that Dick (2005 unpublished) is right when he places the emphasis firmly on action. This seems to me to be where some teacher- based studies have lost their way.
Mc Taggert (1996) warns that it is not solely a research method but must include a commitment to change.
Kemmis (cited in Hopkins, 1985) suggests that action research aim should be primarily focussed on improving practitioners ways of thinking about their practices and situations and should ideally be empowering. Sometimes there is a blurring between this and simply 'sharing best practice' without the reflective element or self-awareness. This is a trap which I hope my experience as a research assistant with my Local Learning Network has helped me to avoid.
Kemmis also stresses the importance of reflection in the review stages of each cycle. This emphasis on reflection seems to be common to most forms of action research/enquiry. I have found the use of formal reflection techniques such as those devised by Gibbs particularly helpful in giving order and clarity to reflections.
There are many models of action enquiry but most share these common characteristics. Action enquiry is seen as iterative, systematic, reflective and, in most forms, collaborative. I have chosen to focus on those forms most relevant to my current context. Action research may involve external researchers coming into an existing organisation to observe or to facilitate change as described by Bob Dick in the Ultraversity Hotseat. It may involve teams of practitioners working together on projects, as has been the case in my Local Learning Network projects. In my current chosen context the focus is on emergent research and starting off from a first person research position.
Emergent research
It is not always important to have a clearly defined research question before embarking on an action enquiry. A question may be found by examining already collected data from external sources or from examination of a reflective journal. Using this inductive approach one may identify themes which can later be refined to produce a research hypothesis or a question. Unlike the scientific method it is not required to start off with a firm idea of either. A starting point may be found, as suggested by Kemmis and Mc Taggert (1982)
"To achieve focus, begin by asking:
What is happening now?
In what sense is this problematic?
What can I do about it?"
First person research
This focuses on the use of the reflective journal, critical incidents, case studies, critical enquiry, narrative enquiry, the use of artefacts, to allow the practitioner to examine their own practice critically and systematically.
"Notice that in all of these variations of teacher/action research, the gaze is ultimately on the researcher. It doesn't matter which 'methodology' we elect to use, in the end the account becomes a laying out of our personal understanding, our sense of the political realities which support or constrain our work with students." (Newman 2002)
This form of research can be the whole of an action enquiry or form the basis for a more collaborative further set of cycles.
Ethical Issues
Ethical issues vary with the context of action enquiries and the different models raise different ethical considerations. In my context there are legal issues with working in a school setting. It is important to work within the guidelines set down by the school itself. In my context this means that I have not used identifiable images or names of children. Before the start of the enquiry I sent out letters to all parents informing them of my studies and asking them to opt out if they objected to their children participating in my work. This followed advice from Dr Matthew Pearson a participant in a previous Ultraversity Hotseat.
I have taken as my starting point some questions from Bob Dick:
"Do I avoid or minimize harm (including minor harm such as nuisance) to participants?
Do they take part in what I am doing in full knowledge of what it entails?
Are they genuinely volunteers and can they withdraw at any time?
Is my research worthwhile enough, and likely enough to yield useful results? Is it worth the time and costs, including costs to the participants?"
Obviously my answer to all these questions must be 'yes' but I also need to establish that this is true for my participants. One way of doing this is to specifically ask them. It is also possible for me in my context to share my report with them. I will therefore show the actual report to teachers and TAs and share an abstract of it with the children.
index