- ‘It involves you thinking carefully about what you are doing, so it becomes critical self-reflective practice.’ (p.23)
- I hadn’t realised it was reflective – can check with course team.
- ‘[…] there is no such thing as ‘action research’. It is a form of words that refers to people becoming aware of and making public their processes of learning with others, and explaining how this informs their practices.’ (p.24)
- ‘[The] idea of showing how you are trying to live your values in your practice is at the heart of debates about demonstrating and judging quality and validity in action research. It includes issues relating to:
- IDing and articulating your values, i.e. what gives meaning to your life and practices;
- Whether you really are living and practising in the direction of your values, and how you test the validity of what you are saying when you claim that you are;
- how you justify those values as their emerge in your practice; this involves interrogating your values and seeing whether they are the right ones for you and your situation; as well as whether your values are shared by others in, say, culturally diverse settings;
- how you judge quality of practice and research in relation to whether you have helped yourself and other people to come to think for yourselves and develop critical perspectives on what you are doing and saying.’ (p. 26)
- OK so this is where the reflective element is going to come in. It would be helpful to think about methods whereby I can analyse that without being biased.
- Key terms:
- ONTOLOGY: the way we view ourselves, ‘who do I think I am?’ Influences how I position myself in the research. What do I believe in?
- EPISTEMOLOGY: ‘what do I know and how do I come to know it?’ How will I form knowledge?
- METHODOLOGY: how I do this research
- SOCIO-POLITICAL INTENT: my research needs to be understood in relation to what you intend to do and how you intend to do it. (paraphrased from p.27)
- ‘Ontological issues: […] action researchers accept the responsibility of ensuring that their own lives are in order before they make judgements about other people’s. This means honestly critiquing their practice, recognising what is good and building on strengths, as well as understand what needs attention and taking action to improve it’ (p.28).
- ‘We can adopt an outsider or an insider perspective, or various points in between. Researcher positionality is a major consideration in deciding which approach to take.’ (p.28)
- ‘We can move action research from its currently dominant surface-level focus on methods and practices to the deeper levels of moral accountability, so that we can explain why we do what we do’ (p. 37)
- I think this is a really nice sentiment to include in my writing.
- ‘Education research, including action research; is always socially, culturally, historically and politically situated, undertaken by a real person or persons, within a particular context, for a particular purpose […] ‘when speaking about educational research in general, and action research in particular, it is important to remember that the conversation is being conducted in a cultural, historical and socio-political context.’ (pp. 38-39)
This is super important to think about when searching for the right methodology:
- ‘Typologies of knowledge: There are different kinds of knowledge and different ways of coming to know (i.e. different epistemologies) […] Which ones you choose depend on your positionality, reflecting your attitudes to and relationships with others.
- Forms of knowledge: […]
- Propositional knowledge refers to knowledge about facts and figures. Knowledge exists ‘out there’ external to a research, whose job is to discover it and pass it on to others who may use it and perhaps exchange it for other goods […];
- Procedural knowledge refers to procedures, skills and technical capabilities. ‘Know how’ is not a fixed body of knowledge external to ourselves but involves practical procedural knowledge. ‘I know how to do this’ refers to actions in the world, and the claim to knowledge can be tested by demonstrating, for example, that you can mathematics or ride a bike.
- Personal knowledge, also called tacit knowledge refers to a subjective, intuitive way of knowing that cannot be rationalised. Often we cannot articulate what we know, we ‘just know’ […] refers to the latent knowledge […] researchers always need to link their ways of knowing with the capacity to reflect on what they are doing and why they are doing it.
- Propositional knowledge […] refer to abstract, analytical ways of thinking and knowing […] we view reality and knowledge as objects external to ourseles; we study them and make proposals about how they work, and why they work as they do […] when we think and express our knowledge in propositional ways, we make positive statements about the way we think about things (example from <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#:~:text=By%20%E2%80%9Cpropositional%20knowledge%E2%80%9D%2C%20we,obtains%20when%20Susan%20knows%20Alyssa. ‘by “propositional knowledge”, we mean knowledge of a proposition – for example, if Susan knows that Alyssa is a musician, she has knowledge of the proposition that Alyssa is a musician. Propositional knowledge should be distinguished from knowledge of “acquaintance”, as obtains when Susan knows Alyssa.”>
- Dialectical forms of logic: refer to the capacity to accept and incorporate contradiction. We view reality as something we are part of, not separate from. Knowing becomes a process of creating new forms out of previous ones, a process of becoming, of coming into being. It works on the principle of question and answer, where one answer generates a new question, so nothing is ever complete or final […]
- Relational forms of logic: […] fluid forms of thinking when we recognise ourselves as in relation with our contexts, including the people and objects we are with […] it is also part of many so-called indigenous ways of knowing (Thayer-Bacon 2003)
- Dialogic forms of logic: […] we are always in relation with other people […] this way of thinking is important for developing communities of practice […] where you enter into and ‘dwell in’ the spirit of the community.’ (pp.40-42)
- Important in considering the types of knowledge that respondents will produce to survey including students and staff. Personal knowledge is interesting – I think personal knowledge is important for this i.e. you don’t have to know how and why you feel that you do not belong, the feeling of not belonging is important for the data.
Typology of human interests:
‘Habermas (1972, 1987), a major theorist in social science, rejected the view that knowledge generation is a neutral activity carried out by an external ‘mind’ somewhere, resulting in the production of ‘pure’ knowledge. Instead, he suggested that knowledge is an activity undertaken by a real person who is driven by particular desires and interests. From this perspective, knowledge is always constituted of human interests. Habermas categories personal-social practices as three broad sets of interests: the technical, the practical and the emancipatory.’ (p. 44)
This is really interesting as it suggests to me that all knowledge is intrinsically biased – I want to research belonging because I felt like I didn’t belong at university. Do I want to find out that students also don’t feel a sense of belonging, because the subconscious motivation of my research is to find community? I don’t know, it makes me think I’ve got to be really rigorous with my decision on a methodology.
Critical implications for action research (this is so interesting!):
‘Many contexts in which action research approaches are used […] draw on the idea of empirical research (where conclusions and decisions are based on valid data or evidence), so action research is (mistakenly) placed in the social sciences. This may be because the traditional model for managing learning (usually other people’s learning) continues to be a mode of instruction. People are expected to receive information and apply it to their work. The locus (focus/concentration) of power is in the external researcher or provider who gathers data about the situation and theorises what is happening in the situation. People then become data to be manipulated and spoken about. Boundaries are established in terms of what can and cannot be done. The collegial and humanitarian values base of human living is systematically factored out, to be replaced by values of self-interest, power and control. Participants are discouraged from acting as agents, and are instead required to become skilled technicians whose job is to apply received knowledge generated by so-called ‘experts’.’ (pp.46-47).
I absolutely love this critical implication for ARP!! It brings in the need to decentralise the power away from me as a researcher and instead strive for a participatory design model (for both research and solutions). This will also negate the risk of me struggling with any unconscious.
Interpretive research (sometimes called interpretative research):
‘In empirical research, participants act as data whose personal involvement is factored out; any personal intervention would contaminate and potentially skew the results. Interpretative approaches, however, acknowledge the contributions of practitioners as real-life participants in the research […] the question always remains, however – who generates the theory and therefore who owns the research?’ (p.47)
‘This interpretative view of the research process and the positioning of the researcher and research participants is potentially little different from that of traditional empirical research. The same power relationships exist in terms of who is regarded as a legitimate knower, whose practice is to be studied, and whose knowledge counts.'(pp.48-49)
Interesting to think that I’m still in a position of power because I’m asking them, I’m studying ‘them’. It seems almost unavoidable?
Critical-theoretical approaches:
My own summary: this approach criticises other methodologies use in social scientific enquiry as they failed to recognise the ‘historical, cultural and social situatedness of researchers. People could not comment on their experience unless they understood how that experience was shaped by their own situatedness. They could not be free until they realised they were unfree […] a new approach […] enabled peple to become aware of the historical and cultural forces that had influenced them and their situations. Peple needed to appreciate the power-constituted nature of their lives, and learn how to challenge. This view came to stand as an ideology critique that enabled people to find ways to recreate their personal and social realities.’ (p.49) Exactly this!!
Critical implications of critical theoretical approaches: ‘The aim of critical theory is to critique, not to initiate or manage change. While critical theorists appear to support action, they tend to remain at the level of rhetoric, their theorising is limited to propositional statements rather than being embodied in their own practices as they engage with changing social processes. This is the main limitation of critical theory as a theory for social renewal. It stays in the abstract linguistic level of description and propositional explanations [critical theory has amazing powers for social renewal, provided critical theorists themselves take the all-important step of showing how their theories work. This would mean transforming abstract theories into concrete action plans, acting in the direction of those plans, and producing accounts of practice to show how they were able to work towards social transformation’ (p.50) A LOT OF FOOD FOR THOUGHT, HERE.
‘I like the idea expressed in the old Irish saying, ‘We live in the shelter of one another’, similar to the African idea of ‘ubuntu’ (I find myself in you). To check that our practices are as we wish them to be, and make claims that we understand and do things better, we have to provide evidence to show how and why things have changed because of our influence. The process of research becomes the practice, and because the process is one of learning, evaluating and acting, it therefore stands as a form of research. The boundaries are dissolved: knowledge, interests and practices are within a life.’ (p.51) There are a lot of blurred lines (gross) with Action Research, I think I have to relax a bit about how to structure it like any other research project.
Key theorists in action research:
- Need to think deeply about my ontological and epistemological stance: ‘[…] do you see yourself as thinking free, seeing the possibilities in everything, and willing to find out what others say and do, so you can learn with and from them? Which literatures do you draw on to develop your understandings? You need to think for yourself, because powerful voices mandate what action research is and is not; and we learn to believe those voices, and opt for one form or another, without considering that there may be more authentic and credible voices to listen to. ‘(p.55)
- I suspect my ontological perspective puts values on my ability to espouse the knowledge of others and synthesise my experiences with theirs. However, I believe I have to let this go and exist in the uncomfortable space where I truly lean into the unknowingness of the project.
- ‘Reason and Bradbury […] suggest that accounts may be seen as first-person, second-person and third-person action research, as follows:
- First-person action research occurs when an individual practitioner reflects on their personal practice and offers an account of what they are doing and thinking.
- Second-person action research is when people enquire with others about how they can address issues of personal concern.
- Third-person action research aims to connect individual researchers with wider communities, whether face to face or virtually at a distance (see Reason and Bradbury, 2008, p.6)
- Even though I don’t want to fit within the paradigms of others too much, I think this is a helpful way of eventually understanding what my project is doing!
From the case study on p.68:
‘I initiated dialogue with the staff: dialogue takes a group beyond any single individual’s understanding, and requires everyone to interrogate their assumptions and regard one another as colleagues. I also learned to change public perception of myself as ‘the man with the answer’, to encourage mental models to be modified and disagreements to be bridged (although not always resolved).’ (p.68 – Eric Deakins, New Zealand).
What we need to know to use our knowledge for personal, social and environmental betterment, how action research can help in the process, and the kind of mindset necessary
‘[…] the values as well as the knowledge they inspire need to be under constant critical review. What action research stands for is the realisation of human needs towards autonomy, loving relationships and productive knowledge, as well as the urge towards freedom of thinking and choice, creativity and self-realisation.’ (p.72)
Extract from p.77 case study: ‘I am being accountable because I am engaging in action research and offering it up for the critique of my peers. The two are becoming one and the same educational process.’ (Case study: Jane Renowden, UK, 2012)
How do we do action research? Planning and doing a project
this is helpful:
‘General principles in planning:
- We review our current practice;
- identify an aspect we wish to investigate;
- ask focused questions about how we can investigate it;
- imagine a way forwards;
- try it out, and take stock of what happens;
- modify our plan in light of what we have found, and continue with the action;
- evaluate the modified action;
- and reconsider what we are doing in light of the evaluation. This can then lead to
- a new action-reflection cycle…’ (p.90)
‘Whitehead (1989) […] proposes that you begin with your enquiry by identifying a situation where your values are denied in your practice: you may believe in social democracy but you do not always give people an opportunity to state their point of view for example […] then transform into a coherent action plan as follows:
- What do I need to investigate?
- How do I wish to investigate it?
- How do I show and describe the current situation as it is?
- What do I think I can do about it? What will I do about it?
- How do I show and explain the situation as it develops?
- How will I ensure that any conclusions I draw are reasonably fair and accurate, by inviting the critical responses of others and myself?
- How do I communicate the sigificance of what I am doing?
- How will I modify my practices and thinking in light of the evaluation?’ (p.91)