Methodology Justification
My assumptions are:
• that the introduction of blogs, RSS, FURL, wikis, social tagging and other on-line tools may improve the experience of using the internet for some users.
• that self-selected groups can form collaborative relationships around resources
• that some users will see the benefit of joining in the conversation
• that a social constructivist approach is of value
• that communities of interest, if not of practice, could form around specific on-line artefacts
• that other users will not join the conversation but may still benefit by observing.
• that some of their reasons for this may be due to unfamiliarity or discomfort with technology
• that some people will not share my beliefs in the value of collaboration
• that some people regard their knowledge and insights as something to be guarded rather than shared.
(From my research proposal)
1.1 Analysis of research methodology
This action research project sits within the tradition of qualitative research and may borrow from the techniques of other methodologies.The techniques of data analysis used by other methodologies such as grounded theory may legitimately be employed by action research so long as the researcher adheres to the principles of action and improvement. I intend to experiment with the use of categorising data to extract themes as in grounded theory. In doing this I may also explore the thematic connections between the categories and the theoretical and research-based literature I encounter as the research direction emerges. Dick (2005) suggests that literature may be treated as another form of data in grounded theory and this seems to me to connect to the need to relate theory to practice emphasised in action research.
I am using an action research methodology primarily to bring about improvement in a problematic situation. This emphasis on the taking of actions differentiates action research from a more ethnographic approach. Both use mainly qualitative data but whereas ethnographic studies aim to describe a complex situation and its context, action research moves from description to attempt to effect positive change in the situation. It also differs from an evaluatative study, as although evaluation may form part of the action research project, again there is the need for action for improvement. My study sets out not to prove or disprove a theory but rather to relate theory to practice and to use the techniques of systematic enquiry to gather data to inform planned actions. For me this is an important aspect in my attraction to the methodology. This need for, and belief in, the possibility of positive movement seems to me a commitment to progression and this fits well with my own underlying world view.
The philosophical stance taken by writers may give an insight into their perspective. It can be the lens through which they view research and it may influence many of their decisions from what constitutes valid data to how the research topic is chosen. Action researcher has traditionally rejected the positivistic, 'science' based view of the normative paradigm. Many action researchers, in common with others who use mainly qualitative data, take an interpretative stance and focus on understanding the "subjective world of human experience" (Cohen et al 2000). Others such as van Manen (2002) adhere to a phenomenological stance where people experience the world through their social context and live in a variety of different worlds each with their own versions of reality. Reality is seen as a series of experiences, to which meaning can only be brought by reflection, or the paying of conscious attention to assign meaning. In his work on the Myths of Organisational Action Research (1997) Knock takes issue with the idea that action research is wedded so closely to one particular philosophical stance. He claims that there is no essential link between the method of 'plan do review' and an anti-positivistic world view and that therefore the link between action research and qualitative data is also broken. His definition of what constitutes an organisational action research project certainly seems to fit the criteria for action research as laid out by Kemmis and McTaggart (1992). Knock characterises action research then primarily as a method which can be applied in either context. This echoes the work of Cook and Reichard (1979) who defined differences between qualitative and quantitative research but then concluded that these underpinning world view differences present a false dichotomy. Researchers could include elements of quantitative research as part of an inductive approach, a process orientated view could be added to a study with an underpinning positivistic world view. I started from the position that personal philosophy had little relevance to my approach. I saw the research as seeking improvements to a practical problem and philosophy as having little or no bearing.
Dick (2005) takes a quite pragmatic approach to research methodology and happily allows that sometimes an experimental model might be more appropriate to a topic. His choice of action research is that of choosing the best fit for a given context. The cyclic nature of action research means that each action is examined by the collection of qualitative data to review the impact of the action. This then informs the planning of the next cycle.To me the cycle is more accurately described as a spiral or even a series of spirals, each moving the researcher towards another positive action. The research will be underpinned by the process of 'plan-do-review' with multiple simultaneous cycles based firmly on my own practice. Each cycle will be clearly drawn. There will be cycles running simultaneously covering different aspects of the research with differing time scales. The emphasis will be on positive actions and involving participants in the research.In the first cycle I will be using an emergent approach and a combination of first person action research and some grounded theory. The emergent approach is well suited to the examination of a situation rather than a tightly defined question. As the study progresses I will move as Dick (2005) says from "fuzzy questions> fuzzy methods>less fuzzy questions"
McNiff (2002) takes an interpretative approach. She likens some action researchers to figure skaters following
"a specific sequence with anticipated outcomes".
For her though action research needs to go much deeper investigating the researcher's lived values. Indeed she goes as far as to suggest that this must be the starting point of action research, that it must begin with an examination of one's values as this will bring clarity to the work. There is a constant emphasis on the search for understanding of what it means to this person to be in this situation at this time but also a desire to seek out other voices and hold this version of the situation up against those of other people. Dick too is keen to seek out divergent voices. His chosen techniques are often borrowed from grounded theory, evaluation or case study and whilst he values reflection it is only as one data source amongst many. There is also a commitment to bring to the research both relevant theory and improvement.
Much of McNiff's emphasis in her writing is on the practitioner researcher and, at least initially, first person research. I will be placing myself in the role of practitioner as researcher and this is another strength of the action research methodology. This role is seen as being a valid one, as long as the researchers' own perceptions and assumptions are clearly identified. The actions I take will be firmly rooted in my practice and the locus of control will remain with me. My learning journal will have a vital role in this aspect of the action research. It cannot stand alone however and I need to seek external validation for my insights. The journal needs to provide an audit trail that others can follow to judge the validity of the research for themselves.
In action research rigour is ensured by triangulation of data, clearly stated researcher views and assumptions are important but so to are other voices, especially those expressing disagreement, and divergent views. External validations of insights, reflections and internal discourses must be sought. To this end I will use a variety of other data sources in addition to the journal and I will place much of the journal on-line where others may see it and add their comments and insights to it.
Although McNiff encourages the application of theory to practice she also believes that theory can and should move in the other direction. Here she has something in common with the grounded theorists who hold that new theory can emerge from examination of data. In her paper "Teachers as educational theorists: transforming epistemological hegemonies" (2005) She sets out explicitly to justify the notion that teacher practitioner/ researchers should be accepted as producers of valid educational theory. She points out the irony that traditionally research is done to produce theory and that teachers have been accepted and encouraged to engage as researchers for many years, yet they are not seen by the educational establishment, or even by other teachers, as capable of producing theory. I am aware that my choice of first person action research as practitioner researcher who is not a teacher and who finds herself considerably lower in the hierarchy of the school may pose some interesting questions. Not least of these is the issue of the locus of control. Most theorists are agreed that researchers must choose a topic over which they can exert some form of control. McNiff explicitly states this
"If it really is outside your scope you should be realistic and leave it"
So as a person with little control whose job role is entirely based on providing support for others I am left with few choices except to examine my own practice.
I will apply reflection techniques, particularly those of Gibbs ( others may also be used for the learning journal) and double loop reflections, as proposed by Agyris, at the end of each cycle.
McNiff emphasises the need to set criteria by which to judge improvement. She suggests that this criteria should link to the researcher's values. This was a powerful insight for me. I had begun to examine my values as I stated my assumptions for the research proposal but until I read this part of McNiff's work I had not fully made the connection between this and the means of judging the efficacy of the improvements I may make and indeed the deeper levels of my reasons for my choice of topic.
Data Collection Methods
1.2 Choice of participants
In order to find participants I will ask people I know, some from school, some from other schools, some unrelated but with an interest in educational resources. I will also ask for participants to come forward via on-line communities in which I'm involved. These people will in the main be teachers or teaching assistants as these are the target audience for the web resources I provide.
The intention is not to find a representative sample as would be the case in an experimental methodology but rather to find people who might be interested in becoming involved in my research for their own purposes. The use of self-selected participants might cause some issues about validity in a more traditional study but these are counter-balanced by the need in this action research context for a level of commitment on behalf of participants. Some of these people will be face to face contacts, others will be people with whom I have had some level of on-line contact.
[Forward to Ethical Issues]
[Back to index]
My assumptions are:
• that the introduction of blogs, RSS, FURL, wikis, social tagging and other on-line tools may improve the experience of using the internet for some users.
• that self-selected groups can form collaborative relationships around resources
• that some users will see the benefit of joining in the conversation
• that a social constructivist approach is of value
• that communities of interest, if not of practice, could form around specific on-line artefacts
• that other users will not join the conversation but may still benefit by observing.
• that some of their reasons for this may be due to unfamiliarity or discomfort with technology
• that some people will not share my beliefs in the value of collaboration
• that some people regard their knowledge and insights as something to be guarded rather than shared.
(From my research proposal)
1.1 Analysis of research methodology
This action research project sits within the tradition of qualitative research and may borrow from the techniques of other methodologies.The techniques of data analysis used by other methodologies such as grounded theory may legitimately be employed by action research so long as the researcher adheres to the principles of action and improvement. I intend to experiment with the use of categorising data to extract themes as in grounded theory. In doing this I may also explore the thematic connections between the categories and the theoretical and research-based literature I encounter as the research direction emerges. Dick (2005) suggests that literature may be treated as another form of data in grounded theory and this seems to me to connect to the need to relate theory to practice emphasised in action research.
I am using an action research methodology primarily to bring about improvement in a problematic situation. This emphasis on the taking of actions differentiates action research from a more ethnographic approach. Both use mainly qualitative data but whereas ethnographic studies aim to describe a complex situation and its context, action research moves from description to attempt to effect positive change in the situation. It also differs from an evaluatative study, as although evaluation may form part of the action research project, again there is the need for action for improvement. My study sets out not to prove or disprove a theory but rather to relate theory to practice and to use the techniques of systematic enquiry to gather data to inform planned actions. For me this is an important aspect in my attraction to the methodology. This need for, and belief in, the possibility of positive movement seems to me a commitment to progression and this fits well with my own underlying world view.
The philosophical stance taken by writers may give an insight into their perspective. It can be the lens through which they view research and it may influence many of their decisions from what constitutes valid data to how the research topic is chosen. Action researcher has traditionally rejected the positivistic, 'science' based view of the normative paradigm. Many action researchers, in common with others who use mainly qualitative data, take an interpretative stance and focus on understanding the "subjective world of human experience" (Cohen et al 2000). Others such as van Manen (2002) adhere to a phenomenological stance where people experience the world through their social context and live in a variety of different worlds each with their own versions of reality. Reality is seen as a series of experiences, to which meaning can only be brought by reflection, or the paying of conscious attention to assign meaning. In his work on the Myths of Organisational Action Research (1997) Knock takes issue with the idea that action research is wedded so closely to one particular philosophical stance. He claims that there is no essential link between the method of 'plan do review' and an anti-positivistic world view and that therefore the link between action research and qualitative data is also broken. His definition of what constitutes an organisational action research project certainly seems to fit the criteria for action research as laid out by Kemmis and McTaggart (1992). Knock characterises action research then primarily as a method which can be applied in either context. This echoes the work of Cook and Reichard (1979) who defined differences between qualitative and quantitative research but then concluded that these underpinning world view differences present a false dichotomy. Researchers could include elements of quantitative research as part of an inductive approach, a process orientated view could be added to a study with an underpinning positivistic world view. I started from the position that personal philosophy had little relevance to my approach. I saw the research as seeking improvements to a practical problem and philosophy as having little or no bearing.
Dick (2005) takes a quite pragmatic approach to research methodology and happily allows that sometimes an experimental model might be more appropriate to a topic. His choice of action research is that of choosing the best fit for a given context. The cyclic nature of action research means that each action is examined by the collection of qualitative data to review the impact of the action. This then informs the planning of the next cycle.To me the cycle is more accurately described as a spiral or even a series of spirals, each moving the researcher towards another positive action. The research will be underpinned by the process of 'plan-do-review' with multiple simultaneous cycles based firmly on my own practice. Each cycle will be clearly drawn. There will be cycles running simultaneously covering different aspects of the research with differing time scales. The emphasis will be on positive actions and involving participants in the research.In the first cycle I will be using an emergent approach and a combination of first person action research and some grounded theory. The emergent approach is well suited to the examination of a situation rather than a tightly defined question. As the study progresses I will move as Dick (2005) says from "fuzzy questions> fuzzy methods>less fuzzy questions"
McNiff (2002) takes an interpretative approach. She likens some action researchers to figure skaters following
"a specific sequence with anticipated outcomes".
For her though action research needs to go much deeper investigating the researcher's lived values. Indeed she goes as far as to suggest that this must be the starting point of action research, that it must begin with an examination of one's values as this will bring clarity to the work. There is a constant emphasis on the search for understanding of what it means to this person to be in this situation at this time but also a desire to seek out other voices and hold this version of the situation up against those of other people. Dick too is keen to seek out divergent voices. His chosen techniques are often borrowed from grounded theory, evaluation or case study and whilst he values reflection it is only as one data source amongst many. There is also a commitment to bring to the research both relevant theory and improvement.
Much of McNiff's emphasis in her writing is on the practitioner researcher and, at least initially, first person research. I will be placing myself in the role of practitioner as researcher and this is another strength of the action research methodology. This role is seen as being a valid one, as long as the researchers' own perceptions and assumptions are clearly identified. The actions I take will be firmly rooted in my practice and the locus of control will remain with me. My learning journal will have a vital role in this aspect of the action research. It cannot stand alone however and I need to seek external validation for my insights. The journal needs to provide an audit trail that others can follow to judge the validity of the research for themselves.
In action research rigour is ensured by triangulation of data, clearly stated researcher views and assumptions are important but so to are other voices, especially those expressing disagreement, and divergent views. External validations of insights, reflections and internal discourses must be sought. To this end I will use a variety of other data sources in addition to the journal and I will place much of the journal on-line where others may see it and add their comments and insights to it.
Although McNiff encourages the application of theory to practice she also believes that theory can and should move in the other direction. Here she has something in common with the grounded theorists who hold that new theory can emerge from examination of data. In her paper "Teachers as educational theorists: transforming epistemological hegemonies" (2005) She sets out explicitly to justify the notion that teacher practitioner/ researchers should be accepted as producers of valid educational theory. She points out the irony that traditionally research is done to produce theory and that teachers have been accepted and encouraged to engage as researchers for many years, yet they are not seen by the educational establishment, or even by other teachers, as capable of producing theory. I am aware that my choice of first person action research as practitioner researcher who is not a teacher and who finds herself considerably lower in the hierarchy of the school may pose some interesting questions. Not least of these is the issue of the locus of control. Most theorists are agreed that researchers must choose a topic over which they can exert some form of control. McNiff explicitly states this
"If it really is outside your scope you should be realistic and leave it"
So as a person with little control whose job role is entirely based on providing support for others I am left with few choices except to examine my own practice.
I will apply reflection techniques, particularly those of Gibbs ( others may also be used for the learning journal) and double loop reflections, as proposed by Agyris, at the end of each cycle.
McNiff emphasises the need to set criteria by which to judge improvement. She suggests that this criteria should link to the researcher's values. This was a powerful insight for me. I had begun to examine my values as I stated my assumptions for the research proposal but until I read this part of McNiff's work I had not fully made the connection between this and the means of judging the efficacy of the improvements I may make and indeed the deeper levels of my reasons for my choice of topic.
Data Collection Methods
1.2 Choice of participants
In order to find participants I will ask people I know, some from school, some from other schools, some unrelated but with an interest in educational resources. I will also ask for participants to come forward via on-line communities in which I'm involved. These people will in the main be teachers or teaching assistants as these are the target audience for the web resources I provide.
The intention is not to find a representative sample as would be the case in an experimental methodology but rather to find people who might be interested in becoming involved in my research for their own purposes. The use of self-selected participants might cause some issues about validity in a more traditional study but these are counter-balanced by the need in this action research context for a level of commitment on behalf of participants. Some of these people will be face to face contacts, others will be people with whom I have had some level of on-line contact.
[Forward to Ethical Issues]
[Back to index]