action research

Action research From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For the British charity formerly named Action Research, see Action Medical Research.

For the academic journal titled Action Research, see Action Research (journal).

Action research or participatory action research – is a research initiated to solve an immediate problem or a reflective process of progressive problem solving led by individuals working with others in teams or as part of a "community of practice" to improve the way they address issues and solve problems. Action research involves the process of actively participating in an organization change situation whilst conducting research. Action research can also be undertaken by larger organizations or institutions, assisted or guided by professional researchers, with the aim of improving their strategies, practices and knowledge of the environments within which they practice. As designers and stakeholders, researchers work with others to propose a new course of action to help their community improve its work practices. Kurt Lewin, then a professor at MIT, first coined the term ―action research‖ in 1944. In his 1946 paper ―Action Research and Minority Problems‖ he described action research as ―a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action‖ that uses ―a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action‖.

Contents 1 Overview 2 Major Theories o 2.1 Chris Argyris' Action Science o 2.2 John Heron and Peter Reason's Cooperative Inquiry o 2.3 Paulo Freire's Participatory Action Research (PAR) o 2.4 William Torbert‘s Developmental Action Inquiry o 2.5 Jack Whitehead's Living Theory approach to action research 3 Action research in organization development 4 See also 5 References 6 External links o 6.1 Bibliography

Overview Action research is an interactive inquiry process that balances problem solving actions implemented in a collaborative context with data-driven collaborative analysis or research to understand underlying causes enabling future predictions about personal and organizational change (Reason & Bradbury, 2002). After six decades of action research development, many

methods have evolved that adjust the balance to focus more on the actions taken or more on the research that results from the reflective understanding of the actions. This tension exists between 1. those who are more driven by the researcher‘s agenda and those more driven by participants; 2. those who are motivated primarily by instrumental goal attainment and those motivated primarily by the aim of personal, organizational or societal transformation; and 3. 1st-, to 2nd-, to 3rd-person research, that is, my research on my own action, aimed primarily at personal change; our research on our group (family/team), aimed primarily at improving the group; and ‗scholarly‘ research aimed primarily at theoretical generalization and/or large scale change.

Action research challenges traditional social science by moving beyond reflective knowledge created by outside experts sampling variables, to an active moment-to-moment theorizing, data collecting and inquiry occurring in the midst of emergent structure. ―Knowledge is always gained through action and for action. From this starting point, to question the validity of social knowledge is to question, not how to develop a reflective science about action, but how to develop genuinely well-informed action — how to conduct an action science‖ (Torbert 2002). In this sense, performing action research is the same as performing an experiment, thus it is an empirical process.

Major Theories Chris Argyris' Action Science Main article: Action Science Chris Argyris' Action Science begins with the study of how human beings design their actions in difficult situations. Humans design their actions to achieve intended consequences and are governed by a set of environment variables. How those governing variables are treated in designing actions are the key differences between single loop learning and double loop learning.

When actions are designed to achieve the intended consequences and to suppress conflict about the governing variables, a single loop learning cycle usually ensues. On the other hand, when actions are taken, not only to achieve the intended consequences, but also to openly inquire about conflict and to possibly transform the governing variables, both single loop and double loop learning cycles usually ensue. (Argyris applies single loop and double loop learning concepts not only to personal behaviors but also to organizational behaviors in his models.) This is different from experimental research in which environmental variables are controlled and researchers try to find out cause and effect in an isolated environment.

John Heron and Peter Reason's Cooperative Inquiry Main article: Cooperative Inquiry Cooperative inquiry, also known as collaborative inquiry was first proposed by John Heron in 1971 and later expanded with Peter Reason and Demi Brown. The major idea of cooperative

inquiry is to ―research ‗with‘ rather than ‗on‘ people.‖ It emphasizes that all active participants are fully involved in research decisions as co-researchers. Cooperative inquiry creates a research cycle among four different types of knowledge: propositional knowing (as in contemporary science), practical knowing (the knowledge that comes with actually doing what you propose), experiential knowing (the feedback we get in real time about our interaction with the larger world) and presentational knowing (the artistic rehearsal process through which we craft new practices). The research process includes these four stages at each cycle with deepening experience and knowledge of the initial proposition, or of new propositions, at every cycle.

Paulo Freire's Participatory Action Research (PAR) Main article: Participatory action research Participatory action research has emerged in recent years as a significant methodology for intervention, development and change within communities and groups. It is now promoted and implemented by many international development agencies and university programs, as well as countless local community organizations around the world. PAR builds on the critical pedagogy put forward by Paulo Freire as a response to the traditional formal models of education where the ―teacher‖ stands at the front and ―imparts‖ information to the ―students‖ who are passive recipients. This was further developed in "adult education" models throughout Latin America.

Orlando Fals-Borda (1925–2008), Colombian sociologist and political activist, was one of principal promoters of "participatory action research" (IAP in Spanish) in Latin America.

Published "double history of the coast", book that compare the official "history" and the non official "story" of the north coast of Colombia.

William Torbert’s Developmental Action Inquiry The Developmental Action Inquiry is a ―way of simultaneously conducting action and inquiry as a disciplined leadership practice that increases the wider effectiveness of our actions. Such action helps individuals, teams, organizations become more capable of self-transformation and thus more creative, more aware, more just and more sustainable‖ (Torbert, 2004). Action Inquiry challenges our attention to span four different territories of experience (at the personal, group or organizational scales) in the midst of actions. This practice promotes timeliness – learning with moment to moment intentional awareness – among individuals and with regard to the outside world of nature and human institutions. It studies the ―pre-constituted internalized and externalized universe in the present, both as it resonates with and departs from the past and as it resonates with and potentiates the future‖ (Torbert, 2001).

Jack Whitehead's Living Theory approach to action research In generating a Living theory, most recently explained in Whitehead and McNiff (2006), individuals generate explanations of their educational influences in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of social formations. They generate the explanations from experiencing themselves as living contradictions in enquiries of the kind 'How do I improve what I am doing?' They use action reflection cycles of expressing concerns (saying why you are

concerned in relation to values), imagining possibilities in developing action plans, acting and gathering data, evaluating the influences of action, modifying concerns, ideas and action in the light of the evaluations. The explanations include life-affirming, energy-flowing values as explanatory principles. Resources and material to support researchers are freely accessible from http://www.actionresearch.net

Action research in organization development Wendell L. French and Cecil Bell define organization development (OD) at one point as "organization improvement through action research".[1] If one idea can be said to summarize OD's underlying philosophy, it would be action research as it was conceptualized by Kurt Lewin and later elaborated and expanded on by other behavioral scientists. Concerned with social change and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, Lewin believed that the motivation to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. "Rational social management", he said, "proceeds in a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of action".[2]

Figure 1: Systems Model of Action-Research Process Lewin's description of the process of change involves three steps:[2] Unfreezing: Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware of a need to change.

Changing: The situation is diagnosed and new models of behavior are explored and tested.

Refreezing: Application of new behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted.Figure 1 summarizes the steps and processes involved in planned change through action research. Action research is depicted as a cyclical process of change. The cycle begins with a series of planning actions initiated by the client and the change agent working together. The principal elements of this stage include a preliminary diagnosis, data gathering, feedback of results, and joint action planning. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in which the client system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need outside help to effect changes, and shares with the consultant the process of problem diagnosis. The second stage of action research is the action, or transformation, phase. This stage includes actions relating to

learning processes (perhaps in the form of role analysis) and to planning and executing behavioral changes in the client organization. As shown in Figure 1, feedback at this stage would move via Feedback Loop A and would have the effect of altering previous planning to bring the learning activities of the client system into better alignment with change objectives. Included in this stage is action-planning activity carried out jointly by the consultant and members of the client system. Following the workshop or learning sessions, these action steps are carried out on the job as part of the transformation stage.[3]The third stage of action research is the output or results phase. This stage includes actual changes in behavior (if any) resulting from corrective action steps taken following the second stage. Data are again gathered from the client system so that progress can be determined and necessary adjustments in learning activities can be made.

Minor adjustments of this nature can be made in learning activities via Feedback Loop B (see Figure 1). Major adjustments and reevaluations would return the OD project to the first or planning stage for basic changes in the program. The action-research model shown in Figure 1 closely follows Lewin's repetitive cycle of planning, action, and measuring results. It also illustrates other aspects of Lewin's general model of change. As indicated in the diagram, the planning stage is a period of unfreezing, or problem awareness.[2] The action stage is a period of changing, that is, trying out new forms of behavior in an effort to understand and cope with the system's problems. (There is inevitable overlap between the stages, since the boundaries are not clear-cut and cannot be in a continuous process). The results stage is a period of refreezing, in which new behaviors are tried out on the job and, if successful and reinforcing, become a part of the system's repertoire of problem-solving behavior. Action research is problem centered, client centered, and action oriented. It involves the client system in a diagnostic, active-learning, problem-finding and problem-solving process. Data are not simply returned in the form of a written report but instead are fed back in open joint sessions, and the client and the change agent collaborate in identifying and ranking specific problems, in devising methods for finding their real causes and in developing plans for coping with them realistically and practically. Scientific method in the form of data gathering, forming hypotheses, testing hypotheses and measuring results, although not pursued as rigorously as in the laboratory, is nevertheless an integral part of the process. Action research also sets in motion a long-range, cyclical, self-correcting mechanism for maintaining and enhancing the effectiveness of the client's system by leaving the system with practical and useful tools for self-analysis and self-renewal.[3]

See also Wikiversity has learning materials about Action research Action learning Appreciative Inquiry Lesson study Praxis intervention Reflective practice For the British charity organisation see Action Medical Research Action Research (journal)

References 1. ^ Wendell L French; Cecil Bell (1973). Organization development: behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. pp. 18. ISBN 0-13-641662-4 9780136416623 0136416543 9780136416548.

OCLC 314258.

2. ^ a b c Kurt Lewin (1958). Group Decision and Social Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. pp. 201.

3. ^ a b Richard Arvid Johnson (1976). Management, systems, and society : an introduction.

Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Pub. Co.. pp. 222–224. ISBN 0-87620-540-6 9780876205402. OCLC 2299496.

External links This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.

Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (March 2012) Interactive guide on supporting and doing action research-- share your teaching and learning strategies with others!

Brief Explanation of Living Theory Action Research by William Barry Peer-reviewed definition of Action Research Action Research for Everything Encyclopedia American Educational Research Association Action Research Special Interest Group site DARnet wiki - Action Research with distributed communities of practice Action Research in Science Education - from the Education Resources Information Center Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio.

International Journal of Action Research - Refereed journal of action research ISSN 1861-9908 SOLAR: Social and Organisational Learning as Action Research Action Learning, Action Research Association Inc. Nordic Centre for Action Research and Action Learning (NorAforsk)

Bibliography Wikibooks: Contemporary Educational Psychology/Chapter 13: The Reflective Practitioner

o

o

Center for Collaborative Action Research Contains examples of peer-reviewed action research reports and a wiki for supporting those engaged in the process of writing or supporting action research.

James, E. Alana; Milenkiewicz, Margaret T.; Bucknam, Alan. Participatory Action Research for Educational Leadership: Using Data-Driven Decision

Making to Improve Schools. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2007. ISBN-978-1-41293777-1 o Burns, D. 2007. Systemic Action Research: A strategy for whole system change.

Bristol: Policy Press. o Davison, R., Martinsons, M., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 65-86. o Noffke, S. & Somekh, B. (Ed.) (2009) The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research. London: SAGE. ISBN 978-1-4129-4708-4. o Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M., Introduction to action research: social research for social change, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1998. o Reason, P. & Bradbury, H., (Ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Action Research.

Participative Inquiry and Practice. 1st Edition. London: Sage, 2001. ISBN 07619-6645-5. o Reason & Bradbury, Handbook of Action Research, 2nd Edition. London: Sage, 2007. ISBN 978-1-4129-2029-2. o Sherman & Torbert, Transforming Social Inquiry, Transforming Social Action: New paradigms for crossing the theory/practice divide in universities and communities. Boston, Kluwer, 2000. o Stringer, E.T. (1999). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. o Woodman & Pasmore, Research in Organizational Change & Development series.

Greenwich CT: Jai Press o Addison-Wesley Series in Organization Development o Pine, Gerald J. (2008). Teacher Action Research: Building Knowledge Democracies, Sage Publications.

Scholarly Journals

An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research Rory O’Brien Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto obrienr@fis.utoronto.ca 1998 Citation: O'Brien, R. (2001). Um exame da abordagem metodológica da pesquisa ação [An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research]. In Roberto Richardson (Ed.), Teoria e Prática da Pesquisa Ação [Theory and Practice of Action Research]. João Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. (English version) Available: http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html (Accessed 20/1/2002)

Table of Contents

Introduction What is Action Research?

Definition The Action Research Process Principles of Action Research When is Action Research used?

Situating Action Research in a Research Paradigm Positivist Paradigm Interpretive Paradigm Paradigm of Praxis Evolution of Action Research Origins in late 1940s Current Types of Action Research Traditional Action Research Contextural Action Research (Action Learning) Radical Action Research Educational Action Research Action Research Tools The Search Conference Role of the Action Researcher Ethical Considerations Examples of Action Research Projects Case Study 1 - Development of nature tourism in the Windward Islands Action Research and Information Technology Case Study 2 - Internet-based collaborative work groups in community health Case Study 3 - Computer conferencing in a learning community Commentary on the need for more research Conclusion

Introduction ―If you want it done right, you may as well do it yourself.‖ This aphorism may seem appropriate if you are a picky housekeeper, but more and more people are beginning to realize it can also apply to large corporations, community development projects, and even national governments. Such entities exist increasingly in an interdependent world, and are relying on Action Research as a means of coming to grips with their constantly changing and turbulent environments.

This paper will answer the question ―What is Action Research?‖, giving an overview of its processes and principles, stating when it is appropriate to use, and situating it within a praxis research paradigm. The evolution of the approach will be described, including the various kinds of action research being used today. The role of the action researcher will be briefly mentioned, and some ethical considerations discussed. The tools of the action researcher, particularly that of the use of search conferences, will be explained. Finally three case studies will be briefly described, two of which pertain to action research projects involving information technology, a promising area needing further research.

What is Action Research?

Definition Action research is known by many other names, including participatory research, collaborative inquiry, emancipatory research, action learning, and contextural action research, but all are variations on a theme. Put simply, action research is ―learning by doing‖ - a group of people identify a problem, do something to resolve it, see how successful their efforts were, and if not satisfied, try again. While this is the essence of the approach, there are other key attributes of action research that differentiate it from common problem-solving activities that we all engage in every day. A more succinct definition is, "Action research...aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to further the goals of social science simultaneously. Thus, there is a dual commitment in action research to study a system and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in changing it in what is together regarded as a desirable direction. Accomplishing this twin goal requires the active collaboration of researcher and client, and thus it stresses the importance of co-learning as a primary aspect of the research process."i[i] What separates this type of research from general professional practices, consulting, or daily problem-solving is the emphasis on scientific study, which is to say the researcher studies the problem systematically and ensures the intervention is informed by theoretical

considerations. Much of the researcher‘s time is spent on refining the methodological tools to suit the exigencies of the situation, and on collecting, analyzing, and presenting data on an ongoing, cyclical basis.

Several attributes separate action research from other types of research. Primary is its focus on turning the people involved into researchers, too - people learn best, and more willingly apply what they have learned, when they do it themselves. It also has a social dimension - the research takes place in real-world situations, and aims to solve real problems. Finally, the initiating researcher, unlike in other disciplines, makes no attempt to remain objective, but openly acknowledges their bias to the other participants.

The Action Research Process Stephen Kemmis has developed a simple model of the cyclical nature of the typical action research process (Figure 1). Each cycle has four steps: plan, act, observe, reflect.

Figure 1 Simple Action Research Model (from MacIsaac, 1995)ii[ii] Gerald Susman (1983) gives a somewhat more elaborate listing. He distinguishes five phases to be conducted within each research cycle (Figure 2). Initially, a problem is identified and data is collected for a more detailed diagnosis. This is followed by a collective postulation of several possible solutions, from which a single plan of action

emerges and is implemented. Data on the results of the intervention are collected and analyzed, and the findings are interpreted in light of how successful the action has been.

At this point, the problem is re-assessed and the process begins another cycle. This process continues until the problem is resolved.

Figure 2 Detailed Action Research Model (adapted from Susman 1983)iii[iii]

Principles of Action Research What gives action research its unique flavour is the set of principles that guide the research. Winter (1989) provides a comprehensive overview of six key principles.iv[iv]

1) Reflexive critique An account of a situation, such as notes, transcripts or official documents, will make implicit claims to be authoritative, i.e., it implies that it is factual and true. Truth in a social setting, however, is relative to the teller. The principle of reflective critique ensures people reflect on issues and processes and make explicit the interpretations,

biases, assumptions and concerns upon which judgments are made. In this way, practical accounts can give rise to theoretical considerations.

2) Dialectical critique Reality, particularly social reality, is consensually validated, which is to say it is shared through language. Phenomena are conceptualized in dialogue, therefore a dialectical critique is required to understand the set of relationships both between the phenomenon and its context, and between the elements constituting the phenomenon. The key elements to focus attention on are those constituent elements that are unstable, or in opposition to one another. These are the ones that are most likely to create changes.

3) Collaborative Resource Participants in an action research project are co-researchers. The principle of collaborative resource presupposes that each person‘s ideas are equally significant as potential resources for creating interpretive categories of analysis, negotiated among the participants. It strives to avoid the skewing of credibility stemming from the prior status of an idea-holder. It especially makes possible the insights gleaned from noting the contradictions both between many viewpoints and within a single viewpoint 4) Risk The change process potentially threatens all previously established ways of doing things, thus creating psychic fears among the practitioners. One of the more prominent fears comes from the risk to ego stemming from open discussion of one‘s interpretations, ideas, and judgments. Initiators of action research will use this principle to allay others‘ fears and invite participation by pointing out that they, too, will be subject to the same process, and that whatever the outcome, learning will take place.

5) Plural Structure The nature of the research embodies a multiplicity of views, commentaries and critiques, leading to multiple possible actions and interpretations. This plural structure of inquiry requires a plural text for reporting. This means that there will be many accounts made explicit, with commentaries on their contradictions, and a range of options for action presented. A report, therefore, acts as a support for ongoing discussion among collaborators, rather than a final conclusion of fact.

6) Theory, Practice, Transformation For action researchers, theory informs practice, practice refines theory, in a continuous transformation. In any setting, people‘s actions are based on implicitly held assumptions, theories and hypotheses, and with every observed result, theoretical knowledge is enhanced. The two are intertwined aspects of a single change process. It is up to the researchers to make explicit the theoretical justifications for the actions, and to question

the bases of those justifications. The ensuing practical applications that follow are subjected to further analysis, in a transformative cycle that continuously alternates emphasis between theory and practice.

When is Action Research used?

Action research is used in real situations, rather than in contrived, experimental studies, since its primary focus is on solving real problems. It can, however, be used by social scientists for preliminary or pilot research, especially when the situation is too ambiguous to frame a precise research question. Mostly, though, in accordance with its principles, it is chosen when circumstances require flexibility, the involvement of the people in the research, or change must take place quickly or holistically.

It is often the case that those who apply this approach are practitioners who wish to improve understanding of their practice, social change activists trying to mount an action campaign, or, more likely, academics who have been invited into an organization (or other domain) by decision-makers aware of a problem requiring action research, but lacking the requisite methodological knowledge to deal with it.

Situating Action Research in a Research Paradigm Positivist Paradigm The main research paradigm for the past several centuries has been that of Logical Positivism. This paradigm is based on a number of principles, including: a belief in an objective reality, knowledge of which is only gained from sense data that can be directly experienced and verified between independent observers. Phenomena are subject to natural laws that humans discover in a logical manner through empirical testing, using inductive and deductive hypotheses derived from a body of scientific theory. Its methods rely heavily on quantitative measures, with relationships among variables commonly shown by mathematical means. Positivism, used in scientific and applied research, has been considered by many to be the antithesis of the principles of action research (Susman and Evered 1978, Winter 1989).

Interpretive Paradigm Over the last half century, a new research paradigm has emerged in the social sciences to break out of the constraints imposed by positivism. With its emphasis on the relationship between socially-engendered concept formation and language, it can be referred to as the Interpretive paradigm. Containing such qualitative methodological approaches as phenomenology, ethnography, and hermeneutics, it is characterized by a belief in a socially constructed, subjectively-based reality, one that is influenced by culture and history. Nonetheless it still retains the ideals of researcher objectivity, and researcher as passive collector and expert interpreter of data.

Paradigm of Praxis Though sharing a number of perspectives with the interpretive paradigm, and making considerable use of its related qualitative methodologies, there are some researchers who feel that neither it nor the positivist paradigms are sufficient epistemological structures under which to place action research (Lather 1986, Morley 1991). Rather, a paradigm of Praxis is seen as where the main affinities lie. Praxis, a term used by Aristotle, is the art of acting upon the conditions one faces in order to change them. It deals with the disciplines and activities predominant in the ethical and political lives of people. Aristotle contrasted this with Theoria - those sciences and activities that are concerned with knowing for its own sake. Both are equally needed he thought. That knowledge is derived from practice, and practice informed by knowledge, in an ongoing process, is a cornerstone of action research. Action researchers also reject the notion of researcher neutrality, understanding that the most active researcher is often one who has most at stake in resolving a problematic situation.

Evolution of Action Research Origins in late 1940s Kurt Lewin is generally considered the ‗father‘ of action research. A German social and experimental psychologist, and one of the founders of the Gestalt school, he was concerned with social problems, and focused on participative group processes for addressing conflict, crises, and change, generally within organizations. Initially, he was associated with the Center for Group Dynamics at MIT in Boston, but soon went on to establish his own National Training Laboratories.

Lewin first coined the term ‗action research‘ in his 1946 paper ―Action Research and Minority Problems‖,v[v] characterizing Action Research as ―a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action‖, using a process of ―a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action‖.

Eric Trist, another major contributor to the field from that immediate post-war era, was a social psychiatrist whose group at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London engaged in applied social research, initially for the civil repatriation of German prisoners of war. He and his colleagues tended to focus more on large-scale, multi-organizational problems.

Both Lewin and Trist applied their research to systemic change in and between organizations. They emphasized direct professional - client collaboration and affirmed the role of group relations as basis for problem-solving. Both were avid proponents of the principle that decisions are best implemented by those who help make them.

Current Types of Action Research

By the mid-1970s, the field had evolved, revealing 4 main ‗streams‘ that had emerged: traditional, contextural (action learning), radical, and educational action research.

Traditional Action Research Traditional Action Research stemmed from Lewin‘s work within organizations and encompasses the concepts and practices of Field Theory, Group Dynamics, T-Groups, and the Clinical Model. The growing importance of labour-management relations led to the application of action research in the areas of Organization Development, Quality of Working Life (QWL), Socio-technical systems (e.g., Information Systems), and Organizational Democracy. This traditional approach tends toward the conservative, generally maintaining the status quo with regards to organizational power structures.

Contextural Action Research (Action Learning) Contextural Action Research, also sometimes referred to as Action Learning, is an approach derived from Trist‘s work on relations between organizations. It is contextural, insofar as it entails reconstituting the structural relations among actors in a social environment; domain-based, in that it tries to involve all affected parties and stakeholders; holographic, as each participant understands the working of the whole; and it stresses that participants act as project designers and co-researchers. The concept of organizational ecology, and the use of search conferences come out of contextural action research, which is more of a liberal philosophy, with social transformation occurring by consensus and normative incrementalism.

Radical Action Research The Radical stream, which has its roots in Marxian ‗dialectical materialism‘ and the praxis orientations of Antonio Gramsci, has a strong focus on emancipation and the overcoming of power imbalances. Participatory Action Research, often found in liberationist movements and international development circles, and Feminist Action Research both strive for social transformation via an advocacy process to strengthen peripheral groups in society.

Educational Action Research A fourth stream, that of Educational Action Research, has its foundations in the writings of John Dewey, the great American educational philosopher of the 1920s and 30s, who believed that professional educators should become involved in community problemsolving. Its practitioners, not surprisingly, operate mainly out of educational institutions, and focus on development of curriculum, professional development, and applying learning in a social context. It is often the case that university-based action researchers work with primary and secondary school teachers and students on community projects.

Action Research Tools Action Research is more of a holistic approach to problem-solving, rather than a single method for collecting and analyzing data. Thus, it allows for several different research tools to be used as the project is conducted. These various methods, which are generally common to the qualitative research paradigm, include: keeping a research journal, document collection and analysis, participant observation recordings, questionnaire surveys, structured and unstructured interviews, and case studies.

The Search Conference Of all of the tools utilized by action researchers, the one that has been developed exclusively to suit the needs of the action research approach is that of the search conference, initially developed by Eric Trist and Fred Emery at the Tavistock Institute in 1959, and first implemented for the merger of Bristol-Siddley Aircraft Engines in 1960.

The search conference format has seen widespread development since that time, with variations on Trist and Emery‘s theme becoming known under other names due to their promotion by individual academics and consultants. These include Dannemiller-Tyson‘s Interactive Strategic Planning, Marvin Weisbord's Future Search Conference, Dick Axelrod's Conference Model Redesign, Harrison Owen‘s Open Space, and ICA‘s Strategic Planning (Rouda 1995).

Search conferences also have been conducted for many different circumstances and participants, including: decision-makers from several countries visioning the ―Future of Participative Democracy in the Americas‖;vi[vi] practitioners and policymakers in the field of health promotion in Ontario taking charge in an era of cutbacks;vii[vii] and Xerox employees sorting out enterprise re-organization.viii[viii] Eric Trist sums up the process quite nicely "Searching...is carried out in groups which are composed of the relevant stakeholders. The group meets under social island conditions for 2-3 days, sometimes as long as five. The opening sessions are concerned with elucidating the factors operating in the wider contextual environment - those producing the meta-problems and likely to affect the future. The content is contributed entirely by the members. The staff are facilitators only. Items are listed in the first instance without criticism in the plenary session and displayed on flip charts which surround the room. The material is discussed in greater depth in small groups and the composite picture checked out in plenary. The group next examines its own organizational setting or settings against this wider background and then proceeds to construct a picture of a desirable future. It is surprising how much agreement there often is. Only when all this has been done is consideration given to action steps..."ix[ix]

Figure 3 provides a schematic of a typical search conference.

set up Advisory Group of local representatives Pre-conference process

agree on process design and participants use focus groups for preparation invitations, distribution of introductory materials

introductions, review objectives, outline process, introduce first stage Introductory plenary SCANNING THE ISSUE Small group session 1

past and present context assess current situation outline probable futures

reports from small groups, discuss directions, introduce second stage Presentation plenary DESIRED FUTURES Small group session 2

long-range visions alternative / preferred futures

Presentation plenary

reports, review progress, introduction to third stage OPTIONS FOR CHANGE

Small group session 3

constraints and opportunities possible futures

reports, define strategic tasks / actions, select key tasks, form task

Presentation plenary

groups

Task Group sessions

TASK GROUP MEETINGS Task Group reports, discuss future contacts, create new Advisory Group

Final plenary report distributed follow-up contacts Advisory Group facilitates meetings of Task Groups Post-conference process

feedback on proposed actions further search conferences widen network continuing evaluation of outcomes

Figure 3 - Search Conference (adapted from The ABL Group, 1997)x[x]

Role of the Action Researcher Upon invitation into a domain, the outside researcher‘s role is to implement the Action Research method in such a manner as to produce a mutually agreeable outcome for all participants, with the process being maintained by them afterwards. To accomplish this, it may necessitate the adoption of many different roles at various stages of the process, including those of plannerleader catalyzer teacher listener synthesizer

facilitator designer observer reporter

The main role, however, is to nurture local leaders to the point where they can take responsibility for the process. This point is reached they understand the methods and are able to carry on when the initiating researcher leaves.

In many Action Research situations, the hired researcher‘s role is primarily to take the time to facilitate dialogue and foster reflective analysis among the participants, provide them with periodic reports, and write a final report when the researcher‘s involvement has ended.

Ethical Considerations Because action research is carried out in real-world circumstances, and involves close and open communication among the people involved, the researchers must pay close attention to ethical considerations in the conduct of their work. Richard Winter (1996) lists a number of principles: ―Make sure that the relevant persons, committees and authorities have been consulted, and that the principles guiding the work are accepted in advance by all.

All participants must be allowed to influence the work, and the wishes of those who do not wish to participate must be respected.

The development of the work must remain visible and open to suggestions from others.

Permission must be obtained before making observations or examining documents produced for other purposes.

Descriptions of others‘ work and points of view must be negotiated with those concerned before being published.

The researcher must accept responsibility for maintaining confidentiality.‖xi[xi] To this might be added several more points: Decisions made about the direction of the research and the probable outcomes are collective Researchers are explicit about the nature of the research process from the beginning, including all personal biases and interests There is equal access to information generated by the process for all participants The outside researcher and the initial design team must create a process that maximizes the opportunities for involvement of all participants.

Examples of Action Research Projects

To better illustrate how action research can proceed, three case studies are presented.

Action research projects are generally situationally unique, but there are elements in the methods that can be used by other researchers in different circumstances. The first case study, an account taken from the writings of one of the researchers involved (Franklin 1994), involves a research project to stimulate the development of nature tourism services in the Caribbean. It represents a fairly typical example of an action research initiative.

The second and third case studies centre around the use of computer communications, and therefore illustrate a departure from the norm in this regard. They are presented following a brief overview of this potentially promising technical innovation.

Case Study 1 - Development of nature tourism in the Windward Islands In 1991, an action research process was initiated to explore how nature tourism could be instituted on each of the four Windward Islands in the Caribbean - St. Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, and St. Vincent. The government took the lead, for environmental conservation, community-based development, and national economic development purposes. Realizing that the consultation process had to involve many stakeholders, including representatives of several government ministries, environmental and heritage groups, community organizations, women‘s and youth groups, farmers‘ cooperatives, and private business, an action research approach was seen as appropriate.

Two action researchers from York University in Toronto, with prior experience in the region, were hired to implement the project, with a majority of the funding coming from the Canadian International Development Agency. Multi-stakeholder national advisory councils were formed, and national project coordinators selected as local project liaisons.

Their first main task was to organize a search conference on each island.

The search conferences took place, the outcome of which was a set of recommendations and/or action plans for the carrying out of a number of nature tourism-oriented subprojects at the local community level. At this point, extended advisory groups were formed on several of the islands, and national awareness activities and community subprojects were implemented in some cases.

To maintain the process, regional project meetings were held, where project coordinators and key advisory members shared experiences, conducted self-evaluations and developed plans for maintaining the process (e.g., fundraising). One of the more valuable tools for building a sense of community was the use of a videocamera to create a documentary video of a local project.

The outcomes varied.xii[xii] In St. Vincent the research project was highly successful, with several viable local developments instituted. Grenada and St. Lucia showed mixed outcomes, and Dominica was the least successful, the process curtailed by the government soon after the search conference took place. The main difference in the

outcomes, it was felt, was in the willingness of the key government personnel to ―let go‖ and allow the process to be jointly controlled by all participants. There is always a risk that this kind of research will empower stakeholders, and change existing power relations, the threat of which is too much for some decision-makers, but if given the opportunity, there are many things that a collaborative group of citizens can accomplish that might not be possible otherwise.

Action Research and Information Technology In the past ten years or so, there has been a marked increase in the number of organizations that are making use of information technology and computer mediated communications. This has led to a number of convergences between information systems and action research. In some cases, it has been a matter of managers of corporate networks employing action research techniques to facilitate large-scale changes to their information systems. In others, it has been a question of community-based action research projects making use of computer communications to broaden participation.

Much of the action research carried out over the past 40 years has been conducted in local settings with the participants meeting face-to-face with ―real-time‖ dialogue. The emergence of the Internet has led to an explosion of asynchronous and aspatial group communication in the form of e-mail and computer conferences, and recently, v-mail and video conferencing. While there have been numerous attempts to use this new technology in assisting group learning, both within organizations and among groups in the community [this author has been involved with a dozen or more projects of this kind in the nonprofit sector in Canada alone], there is a dearth of published studies on the use of action research methods in such projects Lau and Hayward (1997), in a recent review of the literature, found that most research on group support systems to date has been in short-term, experimental situations using quantitative methods.. There are a few examples, though, of longitudinal studies in naturalistic settings using qualitative methods; of those that did use action research, none studied the use and effects of communication systems in groups and organizations.

We can now to turn to the case studies, both of which are situated in an area in need of more research - that of the use of information technology as a potentially powerful adjunct to action research processes.

Case Study 2 - Internet-based collaborative work groups in community health Lau and Hayward (1997) used an action research approach in a study of their own to explore the structuration of Internet-based collaborative work groups. Over a two-year period, the researchers participated as facilitators in three action research cycles of problem-solving among approximately 15 instructors and project staff, and 25 health professionals from various regions striving to make a transition to a more community-

based health program. The aim was to explore how Internet-based communications would influence their evolution into a virtual collaborative workgroup.

The first phase was taken up with defining expectations, providing the technology and developing the customized workgroup system. Feedback from participants noted that shorter and more spaced training sessions, with instructions more focused on specific projects would have been more helpful. The next phase saw the full deployment of the system, and the main lesson learned was that the steepness of the learning curve was severely underestimated, with frustrations only minimally satisfied by a great deal of technical support provided by telephone. The final cycle saw the stabilization of the system and the emergence of the virtual groups The researchers found that those who used the system interactively were more likely to establish projects that were collaborative in nature, and that the lack of high quality information on community healthcare online was a drawback. The participants reported learning a great deal from the initiative.

The interpretations of the study suggest that role clarity, relationship building, information sharing, resource support, and experiential learning are important aspects in virtual group development. There was also a sense that more research was needed on how group support systems can help groups interact with their external environment, as well as on how to enhance the process of learning by group members.

Case Study 3 - Computer conferencing in a learning community Comstock and Fox (1995) have written about their experiences in integrating computer conferencing into a learning community for mid-career working adults attending a Graduate Management Program at Antioch University in Seattle. From 1992 to 1995, the researchers and their students made use of a dial-up computer conferencing system called Caucus to augment learning outside of monthly classroom weekends. Their findings relate to establishing boundaries to interaction, creating a caring community, and building collaborative learning.

Boundary setting was a matter of both defined membership, i.e., access to particular conferences, and actual participation. The architecture of the online environment was equated to that of a house, in which locked rooms allowed for privacy, but hampered interaction. They suggest some software design changes that would provide more cues and flexibility to improve access and usage.

Relationships in a caring community were fostered by caring talk, personal conversations and story telling. Over time, expressions of personal concern for other participants increased, exemplifying a more tightly-knit group. Playful conversations of a personal nature also improved group relations, as did stories of events in individuals‘ lives. These

processes provided the support and induced the trust needed to sustain the more in-depth collaborative learning taking place.

Students were expected to use the system for collaborative learning using three forms of conversation - dialogue, discussion and critical reflection. Dialogues were enjoined as a result of attempts to relate classroom lessons to personal situations at work, with a better understanding provided by multiple opinions. Discussions, distinguished by the goal of making a group decision or taking an action, required a fair degree of moderation, insofar as participants found it difficult to reach closure. The process of reflecting critically on ideas was also difficult - participants rarely took the time to analyze postings, preferring a more immediate, and more superficial, conversational style.

The authors conclude with four recommendations: 1) be clear about the purpose of the computer conference and expectations for use; 2) develop incentives for widespread and continuous participation; 3) pay attention to affects of the software on the way the system is used for learning; and 4) teach members of the community how to translate face-toface collaborative processes to the on-line environment.

Commentary on the need for more research The characteristics of the new information technologies, especially that of computer conferencing, which allows group communications to take place outside of the bounds of time and space, have the potential to be well suited to action research. Projects that traditionally have been limited to local, real-time interactions, such as in the case of search conferences, now have the possibility of being conducted online, with the promise of larger-sized groups, more reflexivity, greater geographic reach, and for a longer period of sustained interaction. The current state of the software architecture, though, does not seem to be sufficient to induce the focused collaboration required. Perhaps this will remain the case until cyberspace becomes as elaborate in contextual cues as our current socio-physical environment. Whatever the eventual outcome of online developments, it is certain that action research and information technologies will continue to converge, and we must be prepared to use action research techniques to better understand and utilize this convergence.

Conclusion This paper has presented an overview of action research as a methodological approach to solving social problems. The principles and procedures of this type of research, and epistemological underpinnings, were described, along with the evolution of the practice.

Details of a search conference and other tools were given, as was an indication of the roles and ethics involved in the research. The case studies gave concrete examples of projects, particularly in the relatively new area of social deployment of information technologies. Further action research is needed to explore the potential for developing computer-mediated communications in a way that will enhance human interactions.

Endnotes

i[i] Thomas Gilmore, Jim Krantz and Rafael Ramirez, "Action Based Modes of Inquiry and the Host-Researcher Relationship," Consultation 5.3 (Fall 1986): 161. ii[ii] Dan MacIsaac, "An Introduction to Action Research," 1995, http://www.phy.nau.edu/~danmac/actionrsch.html (22/03/1998). iii[iii] Gerald I. Susman, "Action Research: A Sociotechnical Systems Perspective," ed. G. Morgan (London: Sage Publications, 1983) 102. iv[iv] Richard Winter, Learning From Experience: Principles and Practice in Action-Research (Philadelphia: The Falmer Press, 1989) 43-67. v[v] Kurt Lewin, "Action Research and Minority Problems," Journal of Social Issues 2 (1946): 34-46. vi[vi] IIRM, "International Institute for Natural, Environmental & Cultural Resources Management," 26/08 1997, http://www.nmsu.edu/~iirm/ (24/03/1998). vii[vii] Ontario Prevention Clearinghouse, "Our Communities in a Global Economy: Under Siege and Taking Charge!" 03/06 1996, http://www.opc.on.ca/events/congressvii/index.html (22/3/1998). viii[viii] Ronald E. Purser and Steven Cabana, "Mobilizing Large-Scale Strategic Change: An Application of the Search Conference Method at Xerox," 19/10 1996, http://www2.wi.net/~rpurser/qualp.txt (12/04/1998). ix[ix] Eric Trist, "Referent Organizations and the Development of Inter-Organizational Domains," 39th Annual Convention of the Academy of Management (Atlanta, 9/8, 1979) 23-24.

x[x] ABL Group, Future Search Process Design (Toronto: York University, 1997). xi[xi] Richard Winter, "Some Principles and Procedures for the Conduct of Action Research," in New Directions in Action Research, ed. Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt (London: Falmer Press, 1996) 1617. xii[xii] Beth Franklin, personal communication - an account of the outcomes has not yet been published (Toronto/York University, 10/2, 1998).

Bibliography

1.

ABL Group. Future Search Process Design. Toronto: York University, 1997.

2.

Boog, Ben, et al. Theory and Practice of Action Research - With Special Reference to the Netherlands. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilbury University Press, 1996.

3.

Chisholm, Rupert, and Max Elden. "Features of Emerging Action Research." Human Relations 46.2 (1993): 275-98.

4.

Comstock, Don, and Sally Fox. "Computer Conferencing in a Learning Community: Opportunities and Obstacles." November 1995. http://www.seattleantioch.edu/VirtualAntioch/DRAFT7HT.HTM (14/04/1998).

5.

Elden, Max, and Rupert Chisholm. "Emerging Varieties of Action Research: Introduction to the Special Issue." Human Relations 46.2 (1993): 121-42.

6.

Emery, Fred E., and Eric L. Trist. "The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments."

Human Relations 18 (1965): 21-32.

7.

Fals-Borda, Orlando. "Evolution and Convergence in Participatory Action-Research." A World of Communities: Participatory Research Perspectives. Ed. James Frideres. Toronto: Captus University Publications, 1992. 14-19.

8.

Franklin, Beth. . An accounting of the outcomes has not yet been published. Toronto/York University, 10/2. 1998.

9.

---. "Grassroots Initiatives in Sustainability: A Caribbean Example." Human Society & The Natural World: Perspectives on Sustainable Futures. Ed. D Bell and R. Keil. Toronto: York University, 1994. 1-10.

10.

---, and David Morley. "Contextural Searching: An Application of Action Learning Principles."

Discovering Common Ground. Ed. M. Weisbord. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1992. 229-46.

11.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 1970.

12.

Gilmore, Thomas, Jim Krantz, and Rafael Ramirez. "Action Based Modes of Inquiry and the Host-Researcher Relationship." Consultation 5.3: 160-76.

13.

Greenwood, Davydd, William Foote Whyte, and Ira Harkavy. "Participatory Action Research as a Process and as a Goal." Human Relations 46.2 (1993): 175-92.

14.

Hall, Budd L. "From Margins to Centre? The Development and Purpose of Participatory Research." American Sociologist Winter 1992: 15-28.

15.

Hollingsworth, Sandra (ed.). International Action Research: A Casebook for Educational Reform.

London: The Falmer Press, 1997.

16.

IIRM. "International Institute for Natural, Environmental & Cultural Resources Management."

26/08 1997. http://www.nmsu.edu/~iirm/ (24/03/1998).

17.

Jones, Sue. "Choosing Action Research." Organizational Analysis and Development: A Social Construction of Organizational Behaviour. Ed. Ian Mangham. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1986.

23-45.

18.

Kock Jr., Nereu F. "Myths in Organisational Action Research: Reflections on a Study of Computer-Supported Process Redesign Groups." Organizations & Society 4.9 (1997): 65-91.

19.

Lather, Patti. "Research as Praxis." Harvard Educational Review 56.3 (1986): 257-77.

20.

Lau, Francis, and Robert Hayward. "Structuration of Internet-Based Collaborative Work Groups Through Action Research." 2/5 1997. http://search.ahfmr.ab.ca/tech_eval/gss.htm (11/4/1998).

21.

Lewin, Kurt. "Action Research and Minority Problems." Journal of Social Issues 2 (1946): 3446.

22.

MacIsaac, Dan. "An Introduction to Action Research." 1995. http://www.phy.nau.edu/~danmac/actionrsch.html (22/03/1998).

23.

Morgan, Gareth, and Raphael Ramirez. "Action Learning: A Holographic Metaphor for Guiding Social Change." Toronto, April. 1983. York University Action Learning Group.

24.

Morley, David. "Resource Analysis as Action Research." Resource Analysis Research in Developing Countries. Ed. Paul F. Wilkinson and William C. Found. Toronto: York University, 1991. 1-16.

25.

Ontario Prevention Clearinghouse. "Our Communities in a Global Economy: Under Siege and Taking Charge!" 03/06 1996. http://www.opc.on.ca/events/congressvii/index.html (22/3/1998).

26.

Purser, Ronald E., and Steven Cabana. "Mobilizing Large-Scale Strategic Change: An Application of the Search Conference Method at Xerox." 19/10 1996. http://www2.wi.net/~rpurser/qualp.txt (12/04/1998).

27.

Revans, Reginald. The Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Bromly, England: Chartwell Bratt, 1982.

28.

Rouda, Robert H. "Background and Theory for Large Scale Organizational Change Methods."

1995. http://alumni.caltech.edu/~rouda/background.html (14/04/1998).

29.

---, and Mitchell E. Kusy Jr. "MANAGING CHANGE WITH LARGE-SCALE, REAL-TIME INTERVENTIONS." 1995. http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~rouda/T5_LSRTOD.html (14/04/1998).

30.

Susman, Gerald I. "Action Research: A Sociotechnical Systems Perspective." Ed. G. Morgan.

London: Sage Publications, 1983. 95-113.

31.

---, and Roger D. Evered. "An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research."

Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (December 1978): 582-603.

32.

Tesch, Renata. Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. New York: The Falmer Press, 1990.

33.

Trist, Eric. "A Concept of Organizational Ecology." Australian Journal of Management 2.2: 161-75.

34.

---. "Intervention Strategies for Interorganizational Domains." Human Systems Development: Perspectives on People and Organizations. Ed. Robert Tannenbaum and et al. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985. 167-97.

35.

---. "New Directions of Hope." Regional Studies 13 (1979): 439-51.

36.

---. "Referent Organizations and the Development of Inter-Organizational Domains." 39th Annual Convention of the Academy of Management. Atlanta, 9/8. 1979.

37.

Weisbord, Marvin (ed.). Discovering Common Ground: How Future Search Conferences Bring People Together To Achieve Breakthrough Innovation, Empowerment, Shared Vision, and Collaborative Action. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1992.

38.

Winter, Richard. Action-Research and the Nature of Social Inquiry: Professional Innovation and Educational Work. Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing Company, 1987.

39.

---. Learning From Experience: Principles and Practice in Action-Research. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press, 1989.

40.

---. "Some Principles and Procedures for the Conduct of Action Research." New Directions in Action Research. Ed. Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt. London: Falmer Press, 1996. 13-27.

41.

Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun. New Directions in Action Research. London: The Falmer Press, 1996.

Action research for professional development Concise advice for new action researchers Jean McNiff First and Second Editions © Jean McNiff 1995, 1997 Third edition © Jean McNiff 2002 Click here to download in Word Format (100 KB)

PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM CURRENTLY UPDATING THIS ABRIDGED VERSION. THIS WILL HAPPEN AS AN ONGOING PROCESS. This abridged version of the booklet is also available in a more expanded book form, from www.september-books.com – please see the weblink in the 'What's new' box on the home page.

Introduction to the third edition The text presented here originally took the form of a small booklet. The First Edition was published in 1995, and since then the booklet has travelled far, appearing in professional education courses in universities, schools and workplaces around the world.

Jean McNiff

Introduction to the first edition (slightly amended) Action research is becoming increasingly known as an approach that encourages practitioners to be in control of their own lives and contexts. It began in the USA, came to prominence in the UK in the 1970s, and by the 1980s it was making a significant impact in many professional contexts, particularly in teacher professional education. Now its influence is world wide, and has spread to virtually all areas where personal and professional learning is undertaken.

This text aims to provide some general answers for the many people who ask, ‗What exactly is action research?‘ A number of excellent books are available to give more detailed responses, and you can find some of them in the ‗bibliographies‘ section of this web site. Here I am hoping to give a brief gloss about what action research is, and how helpful it can be in our hopes to improve the quality of life through learning.

You should know that there are different approaches to action research, as is true of scientific enquiry in general. Hot debates and often real disagreements take place, about the nature and focus of action research, how it is done, who does it, why, and what the outcomes might be. Yet there would seem to be general agreement among the community of action researchers, at least in theory, that action research is based on certain principles – the need for justice and democracy, the right of all people to speak and be heard, the right of each individual to show how and why they have given extra attention to their learning in order to improve their work, the deep need to experience truth and beauty in our personal and professional lives.

This booklet offers one particular approach to action research. I am not claiming that this is the only way, nor necessarily the best way, but it seems to me the most appropriate way available at the moment to address the principles outlined above.

One of the values I hold is the right of each one of us to experience freedom with justice.

Therefore I do encourage you to read other work and other opinions, so that you can make up your own mind about what is most appealing to you and most appropriate for your own situation.

Finding out what is available before deciding on any one option is responsible practice.

In the meantime, do be aware that this guide offers a limited but useful overview of what action research is, how to do it, and what its use value might be for your life.

I hope you will be inspired to find out more about action research and do it yourself.

Jean McNiff

Action Research for Professional Development What is action research?

Action research is a term which refers to a practical way of looking at your own work to check that it is as you would like it to be. Because action research is done by you, the practitioner, it is often referred to as practitioner based research; and because it involves you thinking about and reflecting on your work, it can also be called a form of self-reflective practice.

The idea of self reflection is central. In traditional forms of research – empirical research – researchers do research on other people. In action research, researchers do research on themselves. Empirical researchers enquire into other people‘s lives. Action researchers enquire into their own. Action research is an enquiry conducted by the self into the self. You, a practitioner, think about your own life and work, and this involves you asking yourself why you do the things that you do, and why you are the way that you are. When you produce your research report, it shows how you have carried out a systematic investigation into your own behaviour, and the reasons for that behaviour. The report shows the process you have gone through in order to achieve a better understanding of yourself, so that you can continue developing yourself and your work.

Action research is open ended. It does not begin with a fixed hypothesis. It begins with an idea that you develop. The research process is the developmental process of following through the idea, seeing how it goes, and continually checking whether it is in line with what you wish to happen. Seen in this way, action research is a form of self evaluation. It is used widely in professional contexts such as appraisal, mentoring and self assessment.

A useful way to think about action research is that it is a strategy to help you live in a way that you feel is a good way. It helps you live out the things you believe in, and it enables you to give good reasons every step of the way.

Who does action research?

You do. I do. Potentially, we all do.

Think about any event when you had no idea how to do something, yet you found out through tackling it in a systematic way. For example, how many tries did it take before you stopped falling off your bike and actually rode it? You probably did not stop after each fall and rationalise why you were falling off. The chances are you just tried out new strategies until you were successful.

This is the basic action principle underpinning action research. It involves identifying a problematic issue, imagining a possible solution, trying it out, evaluating it (did it work?), and changing practice in the light of the evaluation. This is what many people do in numerous life situations.

The process described so far is a basic problem solving process. To turn it into an action research process you would need to say why you wanted to investigate an issue (this can be anything, such as riding your bike, or developing good communication practices throughout your organisation), and gather data to show the process. You would then turn the data into evidence in

terms of whether you felt you were living in the direction of what you hoped to achieve in the first place. You would express your hopes not as abstract objectives, but as goals that are in line with your values.

Most of us do a kind of informal action research in many aspects of our lives, though we probably don‘t call what we do action research. Informal action research is undertaken in many workplace contexts as part of on-the-job professional learning. When we put a discipline or structure on our everyday learning from experience, and make it clear to other people how we know what we are doing, we can say that we are doing action research. Many workplaces now encourage practitioners to undertake formal action enquiries as part of their professional learning, often leading to accreditation.

Action research began in the USA during the 1940s through the work of Kurt Lewin, a social scientist. It actually began in other places as well, but Lewin‘s work is generally taken as the starting point. It was popular in the USA for a time, but then went into decline because of cultural, political and economic changes.

It emerged in the 1970s in Britain through several influences. One major influence was the work of Lawrence Stenhouse who directed the Humanities Curriculum Project. He believed that the curriculum ought to be organised in schools so that it was meaningful and relevant to students‘ experience, and they should be encouraged to take on the responsibility of their own learning. He also promoted the idea of ‗teacher as researcher‘.

Action research was developed mainly by academics in higher education, who saw it as a useful way of working in professional education, particularly teacher education. They began studying and clarifying the steps involved, and also the principles underpinning action research, such as the need for democratic practices, care and respect for the individual, and the need for disciplined enquiry. Action research is today prominent not only in teacher professional education but also in management education and organisation studies, social and health care work, and other professional contexts.

Over the years, various models and different interpretations of action research have developed.

Some people prioritise technical aspects, believing that it is important to get the method right.

Other people are also interested in the values that inform action research, such as a belief that people should be in control of their work and the way they conduct that work, and how the research can lead to a living out of those values. Most people recognise the educational base of action research. These different perspectives generate lively debates. There is no one ‗correct‘ way; you must decide what is right for you, and develop your own views. To do that, however, you need to do some action research; the ‗meaning‘ it has for you emerges as you do the research and explain what you are doing and why you are doing it.

Action research and professional learning Action research is used in many professional learning contexts, both formally and informally.

Action enquiries begin with the question, ‗How do I improve my work?‘ This perspective is

quite different from traditional views of professional education, which often take the form of training. In traditional forms, the usual procedure is that an acknowledged expert offers advice to professionals (who are then usually positioned as trainees). More enlightened forms of professional learning programmes work on the assumption that professionals already have a good deal of professional knowledge, and are highly capable of learning for themselves. What they need in their professional learning is an appropriate form of support to help them celebrate what they already know, and also generate new knowledge. New knowledge can most effectively be generated through dialogue with others who are equally interested in the process of learning.

The dialogue is always a dialogue of equals. No one tells another what to do in action enquiries; we all share and value one another‘s learning.

The question ‗How do I improve my work?‘ contains a social intent. The intention is that one person improves their work for their own benefit and the benefit of others. If you can improve what you are doing (at least improve your understanding of what you are doing), there is a good chance you will influence the situation you are working in. Your increased awareness and your readiness to be self critical will probably have an influence on the people you are working with.

You are aiming to influence them for the better. There is nothing sinister in the idea of influence, and everything to celebrate; most ideas that people have were influenced by someone else, somewhere else in time and space. This is the way that knowledge evolves, a process of learning from others and reworking existing knowledge in new ways.

The methodology of action research means that you have to evaluate what you are doing. You need to check constantly that what you are doing really is working. Are you really influencing your situation or are you fooling yourself? This awareness of the need for self evaluation shows your willingness to accept responsibility for your own thinking and action. Accountability is part of good professional practice. You are always aware that you have to give good service, to attend to the needs of others in the way that is best for them, and to show that you have responsible attitudes and behaviour. In doing action research you are giving an account of yourself. You are showing that you are a responsible person and can justify what you are doing with good reason.

Action research helps you to formalise your learning and give a clear and justified account of your work, not on a one-off basis, but as a continuing regular feature of your practice.

Professional assessment and appraisal Ongoing assessment is an increasingly regular feature of professional working arrangements.

The idea of incremental learning is also increasingly accepted, when people build on previous learning, developing and transforming past practice in new contexts. It is anticipated that people can transfer their skills and knowledge to work requiring a higher level of expertise. Formative (ongoing) assessment monitors this kind of professional incrementalism, and allows practitioners to evaluate and modify their actions as appropriate.

Appraisal is also part of professional development programmes, and action research offers a new focus that enables people to celebrate their learning together. Social relationships tend to change.

Traditionally, appraisal has been seen as the responsibility of a manager who is authorised to make judgements about the professionalism and competence of staff. Action research is a form

of personal self evaluation, and also creates contexts for critical conversations in which all participants can learn as equals. Action enquiries begin with an individual‘s question, ‗How do I improve my work?‘. When the enquiry is shared with others, and they wish to become involved – possibly by critiquing, or by deciding to do something similar, or by offering ideas for new enquiries – then the question changes to ‗How do we improve our work?‘. Appraisal and professional assessment become a context for collaborative learning in the workplace.

How do I do action research?

The basic steps of an action research process constitute an action plan: We review our current practice, identify an aspect that we want to investigate, imagine a way forward, try it out, and take stock of what happens.

We modify what we are doing in the light of what we have found, and continue working in this new way (try another option if the new way of working is not right) monitor what we do, review and evaluate the modified action, and so on … (see also McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead, 1996, and forthcoming) Two processes are at work: your systematic actions as you work your way through these steps, and your learning. Your actions embody your learning, and your learning is informed by your reflections on your actions. Therefore, when you come to write your report or make your research public in other ways, you should aim to show not only the actions of your research, but also the learning involved. Some researchers focus only on the actions and procedures, and this can weaken the authenticity of the research.

A number of models are available in the literature. Most of them regard practice as non-linear, appreciating that people are unpredictable, and that their actions often do not follow a straightforward trajectory. The action plan above shows action reflection as a cycle of identify an area of practice to be investigated; imagine a solution; implement the solution; evaluate the solution; change practice in light of the evaluation …

This action research cycle can now turn into new action research cycles, as new areas of investigation emerge. It is possible to imagine a series of cycles to show the processes of developing practice. The processes can be shown as a spiral of cycles, where one issue forms the basis of another and, as one question is addressed, the answer to it generates new questions.

Remember that things do not often proceed in a neat, linear fashion. Most people experience research as a zig-zag process of continual review and re-adjustment. Research reports should communicate the seeming incoherence of the process in a coherent way.

The generative transformational nature of evolutionary processes My own view is that we live in a deeply unified universe, where all things are connected, often in very distant ways, but their effects are evident in the lives of everyone – the ‗butterfly effect‘, where the beat of a butterfly‘s wing locally can have repercussions in far-flung global terms. For me, all open-ended systems have the potential to transform themselves into richer versions of themselves. Humans and human interactions, by the fact that they are living, are open systems. I like the following diagram, to show the process of development as an expanding spiral. This diagram captures (I hope) the dynamic movement of consciousness, practice, dialogue, social formations. It is bounded only by mortality. The model is frequently adopted (and adapted) in the literature.

What is the focus of action research?

Different researchers concentrate on different aspects of action research. Some are interested in procedures. As long as the action steps are right, they feel, this is good action research. The quality of action research is judged rather as ballroom dancing or ice skating: specific steps are executed in a specific sequence with anticipated outcomes. Other researchers feel that a focus on method is not enough. They believe that action research can help us make sense of our lives. We need to move beyond the surface structure of method (although this is still important), and look at the deep underlying structure of our values and intentions in living our lives.

Values into practice Every one of us lives according to values. There are no overarching structures of values to tell us which values to hold; each one of us makes our own choices. Some people believe in the rights of individuals; others do not see individuals as having rights. Business tends to work on a different set of values than health care. It is not unusual for values systems to be in conflict, and this is when problems can arise. People often are not able to resolve the situation and live together with their different values.

Action research begins with values. As a self reflective practitioner you need to be aware of what drives your life and work, so you can be clear about what you are doing and why you are doing it.

You might need to spend time clarifying for yourself the kinds of values and commitments you hold. This would be a firm starting point for your action enquiry.

Sometimes we say we believe in something, but are unable to live according to what we believe, for a variety of reasons. Here we would experience ourselves, in Jack Whitehead‘s words, as ‗living contradictions‘. A point of entry for action research would be to find ways of overcoming the contradiction so that we might live more fully in the direction of our values.

Action planning A number of action plans are available in the literature. The action plan that has grown in popularity around the world is the one developed by Jack Whitehead. The aim is to encourage you, a practitioner, to ask critical questions about your own practice, and find the answers for yourself. No one else can give you answers. Other people can comment and advise, but only you can say what is right for you and your situation. It could be that there are no answers to your particular issue, but the process of asking questions is as important as finding answers.

Here is a modified version of Jack‘s action plan. On the next page, the plan is explained in greater detail.

What issue am I interested in researching?

Why do I want to research this issue?

What kind of evidence can I gather to show why I am interested in this issue?

What can I do? What will I do?

What kind of evidence can I gather to show that I am having an influence?

How can I explain that influence?

How can I ensure that any judgements I might make are reasonably fair and accurate?

How will I change my practice in the light of my evaluation?

There is always a dilemma between suggesting action plans and avoiding making them appear as prescriptive. In action research, everyone takes responsibility for their own practice and for asking their own questions. You do need to ensure, however, that your research is reasonably systematic and rigorous. In doing your research you are aiming to make a claim that you have improved practice, so you do need to produce validated evidence to support that claim.

The action plan in detail In deciding to do action research, you are showing your intent to learn more about a particular issue within a particular situation. Your research is a conduit for your learning. It can take the following form:

What issue are you interested in researching?

Ask yourself, ‗What is especially high in my mind at the moment?‘ The research issue you identify could be wide in range and scope, such as the state of the economy or the working ethos of your organisation. It could also be narrowly focused on one small area, such as how you can

maintain your diary systematically. Often what might appear as a small issue turns out to be symptomatic of much wider ones.

Some researchers present the idea of a research issue as a problem. Action research is not only problem solving, though it contains elements of problem solving. It does mean problematising issues and engaging with them; questioning what is happening, and asking how it might be improved. This then involves asking questions about the conditions that are allowing the situation to be as it is, and finding ways of changing the conditions. The main point is to identify an area you wish to investigate, and be reasonably clear about why you wish to get involved.

It is important, in your first action enquiries, to be reasonably sure that you can do something about the issue you have identified. You should be practical and ask, ‗Can I actually do something about this issue? Can I influence the situation, or is it outside my scope?‘ If it really is outside your scope you should be realistic and leave it. Having said that, do not give up altogether. Aim to address one small aspect of your work. While it might be true that you cannot change the world, you can certainly change your bit of it; and if everyone changed a small bit at a time, a lot of change could happen quickly.

Once you have identified a research issue, you should formulate a research question. This can be stated in terms of

How do I …?‘

For example, How do I improve my relationships with my colleagues?

How do I help John overcome his fear of flying?

How do I manage my work schedule more efficiently?

The main ideas are: I am asking a real question about something that is important to me, and I am hoping to find ways of engaging with it; I am a real person; I am trying to improve something; this might be my own understanding, or it might be an aspect of the social situation I am in (remember: improvement does not mean perfection.

Any improvement is still improvement, no matter how small).

Why are you interested?

You need to be reasonably clear why you want to get involved. The reasons for our actions are often rooted in our values base, that is, the things we believe in and that drive our lives. If you believe that all people have equal rights, you will try to ensure that your workplace is a place in which everyone does have equal rights, and you will organise your own work so that everyone has the opportunity to exercise their rights. The trouble is, we often work in situations where it is not possible to live in a way that is congruent with what we believe in. You might believe in equal rights for all, but your workplace could well be a place where the rights of some people are denied. As your research progresses you might find that you are the one who is denying equal rights to others. You should expect surprises like this.

Action research is a way of working that helps us to identify the values that are important for our lives and to live in the direction of those values, that is, take them as the organising principles of our lives. It is unlikely that we will ever get to a situation where our work and situations are entirely congruent with our values. But we are not aiming for ‗end products‘; we are aiming to find right ways of living.

What kind of evidence can you gather to show why you are interested?

If you are in a situation where things are not as you would wish them to be, how can you show that situation so that other people can relate to what you are experiencing? How can you show what the situation was like, which made you resolve to do something about it?

You need to gather data about the situation, and you can use a variety of methods for this – journals, diaries, notes, audio and videotape recordings, surveys, attitude scales, pictures, and so on. You can use different data gathering methods at different times if you wish. You will compare this first set of data with later sets of data, to see whether there is any change and whether you can say that you have influenced the situation. Aim to gather as much data as you feel is right; most people gather too much to begin with.

You need to begin identifying working criteria to help you make judgements about whether the situation might be improving. These criteria would be linked with your values. If you believe that all people should be treated fairly, a criterion will be whether you can show that people are being treated fairly. The criteria you identify might change as the research project develops.

Your data will turn into evidence when you can show that it meets your nominated criteria.

What can you do about the situation? How do you act in order to influence it in an educative way?

You need to imagine ways in which you might begin taking action. You might want at this stage to consult with others about how you could move forward. These others could be your critical friend or your validation group. A validation group is a group of people you invite to look at your research from time to time, and offer critical feedback. The decisions you come to about

what action to take will be your own decisions; you take responsibility for what you do. You need to consider your options carefully and decide what you can reasonably expect to achieve, given the time, energy and other resources you have.

Having decided on a possible strategy, you now need to try it out. It might work and it might not.

If it does, you will probably want to continue developing it. If it does not, you will probably abandon it, or part of it, and try something else.

What kind of evidence can you gather to show your educative influence?

This is your second set of data, which will also turn into evidence by meeting your nominated criteria. You can use the same, or different, data-gathering methods that you used before.

Perhaps you used surveys and interviews to gather your first set of data; now you might want to use audio and video tape recordings which will capture not only people‘s words but also their expressions and body language. You should try to show, through this set of data, whether there is an improvement in the situation, even though that improvement might be very small. You might also be able to show a development in your own thinking and learning. This is an integral part of the action research process.

How do you explain your educative influence?

Remember that the focus of the enquiry is you. You are always in company with others, so what you do is bound to have an influence on them. How can you show that your influence was as you wished it to be? To gauge your impact on them, you need to get their reactions to how they perceive their relationship with you.

Remember that you are not trying to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between you and other people‘s actions. You are not saying, ‗I brought about improvement‘ or ‗I made that happen‘. You are saying, ‗I can show that certain changes took place as I changed my practice, particularly in myself, and different relationships evolved.‘ You are aiming to show a development of influence, an unfolding of new understandings and actions from people working together in new ways, and their influence on one another, that is, how they learn with and from one another.

How do you ensure that any judgements you make are reasonably fair and accurate?

If you say, ‗I think that such and such happened‘, you can expect someone to say, ‗Prove it.‘ The answer is that you can‘t. You can‘t prove anything. The word ‗prove‘ does not exist in action research. You can however produce reasonable evidence to suggest that what you feel happened really did happen, and you are not just making it up.

In saying that you believe you have influenced your situation for good, you are making a claim to knowledge. You are also producing evidence to back up the claim. Now you need other people critically to consider your claim and agree that you have good reason for making your claim.

They might agree that you are justified in making your claim, and their agreement would be validation of your claim. They might suggest that you need to look at the research again and gather further data, perhaps, or tighten up the link between your data and your criteria. Once you have other people‘s validation you can say in all honesty, ‗I am claiming that I have influenced this situation because I started looking at ways in which I could improve what I am doing, and I now have the endorsement of other people to show that what I say I am doing constitutes a fair and accurate claim.‘

How do you modify your practice in the light of your evaluation?

You will probably carry on working in this new way because it seems to be better than the way you were working before. It is more in line with the way you wish things to be. You are living in the direction of your values (though you might still have far to go).

This does not mean closure. Although you have addressed one issue, others might have emerged which now need attention. Perhaps in addressing one issue, you have unearthed other issues that you had not expected. There is no end, and that is the nature of developmental practices, and part of the joy of doing action research. It resists closure. Each ending is a new beginning. Each event carries its own potentials for new creative forms.

This is what makes action research a powerful methodology for personal and social renewal.

You are thinking and searching all the time. You are never complacent or content to leave problematic situations as they are, because you refuse to become complacent or lazy. As long as you remain aware, alert, constantly open to new beginnings, you will continue growing into all the persons you are capable of becoming.

Criteria There are two sets of criteria you need to give attention to. The first is in relation to your research; the second is in relation to your research report.

Criteria for action research projects When we wish to make judgements about something to establish its value, we set criteria to help us make those judgements. Criteria are the standards we use to make judgements.

Criteria can be set and expressed through words (verbally) as well as through actions (nonverbally). In most professional contexts, criteria take a traditional verbal form. A checklist might be drawn up which specifies the criteria: ‗The person can do such and such‘. These criteria are often communicated in terms of behaviours: ‗The person can perform a certain task‘. Qualifying

as a good manager or teacher, therefore, means that you perform appropriately, and a written record is kept of achieved skills and behaviours.

In action research, criteria are set in terms of the values that inform practice. The values might be expressed verbally – ‗I believe in fairness in the workplace‘ – but they are expressed and enacted physically, for example, when you demonstrate or experience fairness. It is important to recognise that the meanings of these embodied values become clear as they emerge during your research. Often at the start of a project they are not immediately clear. You need to think about what is important for your practice and what drives it. The things you believe are important (your values) become your criteria. In the process of clarifying the meanings of your embodied values, as they emerge in practice, you transform your values into your criteria (or standards). You can share these living standards with others, and use them to test the validity of your claims to have influenced the learning of others in an educational way. They are ‗living‘ because they can change during your enquiry (See Part One of Moira Laidlaw's Ph.D. thesis on her search for her educational standards of judgement at http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/moira.shtml).

To show that you are living in the direction of your values, you need to search your data archive, and produce pieces of data that meet the criteria. When the data match the criteria, those pieces of data become evidence. You use this evidence when you produce your research account and make a claim that you have improved your learning about your situation, and possibly also improved the situation. You make your criteria clear, so that people can see that you are grounding your claim in evidence and it is not only your opinion. You can then say that your practice is evidence based. The evidence you produce is in terms of how you make judgements about the value of your work.

Criteria for judging the quality of research reports Action research is part of a transition from ‗traditional scholarship‘ to what is called ‗new scholarship‘. Traditional forms are still dominant, so action research reports still tend to be judged by traditional criteria. Most of these criteria are technical: for example, does the research show a systematic process of data gathering, analysis and interpretation.

However, while technical criteria are important, they are now complemented by qualitative, experiential ones, such as whether people can relate to and learn from your report. Other criteria can be negotiated. These might include considerations of the kind: Do you show that you are trying to live in terms of what you believe in?

Do you show that you can hold yourself accountable for your claims to knowledge?

Do you show how you have changed your own thinking and practice, and how this has possibly influenced others educationally?

These kinds of criteria enable you to make professional judgements about whether the quality of your understanding, productive work and relationships has been improved.

Critical friends and validation groups

So that your judgement of your work is not held to be only your opinion, you need to make the work available to the critical scrutiny of others, such as your critical friend and your validation group.

Critical friends Your critical friend (also called a ‗critical colleague‘ or ‗learning partner‘) is someone whose opinion you value and who is able to critique your work and help you see it in a new light.

Critique is essential for helping us to evaluate the quality of the research. You would ask one or two people to be critical friends from the start of the project.

Your validation group You would also convene a validation group of 4–10 people. Your critical friend might or might not be a member of the group. They would be drawn from your professional circle, and would agree to meet with you periodically to listen to your progress reports and to scrutinise your data.

Although they might not be entirely familiar with your research, they would be able to make professional judgements about the validity of your report, and would offer critical feedback. You should listen carefully to their advice, though you are not compelled to act on it.

Who sets the criteria?

The issue of who sets the criteria is contested. In most professional contexts, criteria are set by ‗experts‘, and practitioners are expected to perform appropriately. In action research, practitioners take responsibility for their own work and negotiate their own criteria. This can lead to conflict, when practitioners might challenge the right of others to control their work, and when struggles take place for the right to be acknowledged as one-who-knows. Action research does empower practitioners; but you need to be aware of the potential fall-out when you claim that you, too, are a legitimate knower.

Action research and professional development Improving the work you do is about learning to do things in new ways. It is a process of professional learning. This is true whether you are just beginning your career or whether you are in full swing. Learning is for life, not just for college.

Many professional learning programmes work from the point of view of the person who is conducting them (‗delivering‘ them in much contemporary language). The emphasis is often on teaching or training, not so much on learning. The assumption is that the trainer knows the answers and passes them on to you, and then supervises you to make sure you are applying them correctly. This delivery model is widespread and often unquestioned.

When action research informs professional development programmes, they work from the point of view of the person who is learning. It is assumed that you already know a great deal. Perhaps your knowledge is intuitive or only roughly worked out, but you still have the answers in

yourself, ready for the right stimulus to set them off. You don‘t need a trainer so much as a supporter, or critical friend, who will listen to your ideas, challenge them, and help you to find alternatives. This kind of facilitative model means that the supporter is also learning; they are not expected to have answers to your workplace-based questions. They actively learn with and from you; it is a dialogue of equals. Of course, being an effective supporter means developing a high level of interpersonal skills, sensitivity and wisdom. Developing these skills is a research process.

Your supporter is asking questions such as, ‗How do I help you to learn and find out your own answers?‘ You have formed a community of critically questioning, caring colleagues.

Doing action research helps you to grow professionally, to show how you are extending your own professional knowledge. It does this in many ways, including the following: Doing your research helps you to examine your own practice and see whether it lives up to your own expectations of yourself in your work. If you say you hold certain values, how can you show that you are living in their direction?

By showing other people what you are doing, you can establish a systematic evaluation procedure. If you are a manager, you are showing how you are supporting the learning of those in your organisation, and you can say why you think this is happening. You can produce clear evidence to show progress. You can let the voices of others come through to explain how their learning has improved because of your intervention. If they say that you don‘t seem to be helping them, you can try to change the situation so that you are.

You can identify the criteria, or standards, that you and others are using to judge the quality of what you are doing. You identify how you understand your professionalism, in negotiation with others, and you show how you are trying to live in this way.

You should always try to maintain your professional learning. Too often people assume that once they have achieved qualified status, they don‘t need to learn any more. How do you understanding professional learning? Are you in a stable place, where you believe you have learnt all there is to know? Are you going to learn for the next six months, and then take a rest?

Or are you going to regard learning as a lifelong process that is as natural as breathing? It is your choice.

Why do action research?

Sometimes people criticise action research as idle self-contemplation. This is not so. People do action research as a way of helping them understand how they can influence social change. This commitment is contained in Marx‘s idea that it is not enough only to understand the world; the intent is to change it for the better.

Action research questions take the form, ‗How do I improve what I am doing?‘ This question has an underlying intent to help other people, on the following principles: You decide to investigate what you are doing with a view to improving it.

This will help you to understand the situation more fully.

Your developed understanding will help you to evaluate your work and change it as necessary.

Your way of working might influence others; how can show this?

You do this by checking your perceptions of what is happening against theirs.

You change your way of working in light of their perceptions. You negotiate this with them.

Your collective agreement about these things helps you all to understand the situation better.

You learn from colleagues, and they learn from you. They decide to try things out for themselves.

They invite you to become their critical friend, and help them evaluate their work.

Collectively you are now a community of enquirers. You have changed your social situation, and this is bound to have consequences for wider social contexts.

Your individual ‗I-enquiry‘ has turned into a collective ‗we-enquiry‘. You have moved from ‗I‘ to ‗we‘.

It is not just that you as an individual are investigating your work. You are aware of the reasons underpinning your work, and how it might impact on others. Action research contains a deep commitment by responsible practitioners to hold themselves accountable for their own ways of living and working. You cannot accept responsibility for anyone else (apart from contexts of pathology, or contexts involving babies and young children). You must, however, accept responsibility for yourself. Unless you are prepared to be accountable for yourself, you cannot expect other people to do the same.

The need for case study evidence It is not enough just to talk about these things. We need to show how we are practising what we preach, otherwise the ideas remain in the imagination and do not move into reality. One of the strengths of action research is that it begins in practice, and people generate their own theories out of their practice. Action researchers are real people in real situations.

There is an overwhelming need for the production of case stories to show how researchers improved their own learning and situations for the benefit of themselves and others. Bodies of case study evidence are growing in books and on web sites (see www.actionresearch.net). The more case studies that appear, the more powerful the body of knowledge becomes. These bodies of knowledge present undeniable evidence that action research constitutes a form of learning that has profound implications for the future of society.

Action research for a good social order Seen in this way, action research is something people do in order to improve the quality of life for themselves and for others. It is a way of working that begins with individuals asking

themselves, ‗How do I improve what I am doing for your sake?‘ The intention is that one person becomes self-evaluative in order to work better for others with whom they are in company.

This applies not only to the individual action researcher, but to all. We move away from the delivery model of ‗I tell you what to do‘. No one person tells another what to do. It is a two-way, reciprocal partnership. Everyone (not only one individual) needs to ask, ‗How do I improve what I am doing for your sake?‘ Each one has to accept the responsibility of their own actions and lives. Each person aims to be a better individual so that, collectively, they can contribute to the formation of a better society.

People often point out the hard political realities of living and working within social and professional contexts. The realities are that particular ways have become established, and these ways are protected by people who are happy with the status quo. These ways of working become established structures, and individuals are often deliberately silenced, and sometimes vanish, within these structures. Some people say it is not possible to change established ways. Action researchers would respond that this is not so. First, we have to believe that it is possible to change things, otherwise we might as well give up right now on every effort and programme to improve the quality of life – medical research, world adventure and exploration … If we live in hope, at least we have some idea of what we can achieve. If we do not, we can be sure of a zero outcome. Action research is one way to influence social change. If everyone did a bit extra for someone else, the world would instantly be a happier and more productive place for all.

Whole organisation development Given these ideas of how individuals can work together to create their own societies, it is not difficult to imagine how whole organisation development may be encouraged. Each individual undertakes their personal enquiry into an aspect of their own practice, and then shares that enquiry with others, and together they form research collectives. These collectives can systematically evaluate the practice of one individual, or they might ask their own collective questions about how they can improve their understanding and circumstances. Much social and community development happens along these lines.

Managing organisational change The concept of collective involvement can be particularly challenging for people positioned as managers, for they may need to develop new ways of thinking and working, as well as new self perceptions, that might be at odds with traditional views. Managers might need to change their ideas about what they are managing and how they are doing so. In traditional models, managers manage other people. How they do that is a matter of personal style. In action research ways, managers arrange for the conditions of learning to be right. They arrange for organisational structures, processes and resources to encourage individual learning to take place. When individual learning in organisational contexts becomes collective learning, this can then be called organisational learning.

How managers do this is important. Traditionally managers were expected to be aloof from the workforce, and direct operations from a distance. They arranged for other people to learn. In action research, managers also become learners, learning with the people they support, though the focus of their enquiries shows their concern to fulfil their different responsibilities. Unless managers are willing to acknowledge themselves as learners, they might be denying the very principles they say they are espousing. This can be threatening for many managers, because it involves destabilisation, risk and personal courage, but it can also be liberating and exciting.

Whether or not you wish to engage is your choice.

Supporting professional development Traditional professional development programmes tend to operate from a subject base. The aim is to help practitioners to improve subject knowledge and expertise. They also operate from an advisory base. Support is offered by a subject adviser. The model underpinning this model is a model of teaching (often instruction).

Support for professional development through action research builds on a model of learning, where practitioners are challenged and helped to find new ways of doing things. The emphasis is on practice rather than subject knowledge. The route is personal enquiry (What do I do?) rather than others‘ advice (What do you think I should do?). In traditional ways, an adviser advises practitioners; practitioners implement the advice; the adviser evaluates outcomes. In action research approaches, the practitioner talks through ideas with a listening supporter; the practitioner acts; the practitioner evaluates outcomes in company with the adviser and others.

Relationships This model has profound implications for professional relationships. In traditional ways, a power relationship often exists between adviser and practitioner. This relationship is often subtle, but the effects can be obvious, from practitioners‘ lack of confidence to deskilling. Nor is the situation educational for the supporter, who is expected to have all the answers.

In action research approaches there is a genuine sense of partnership, where practitioner and supporter recognise that there might be a difference in responsibilities and professional expertise, but no difference in value. They are equal as practitioners. Both are there to improve their work by acting as challenging and supportively critical colleagues, each for the other. This is a creative dialogue of equals in which both are trying to find the best way forward for themselves and each other.

Accreditation Practitioners have the right to have their work formally recognised, if they wish. This often takes the form of professional certificates and awards.

Most award-bearing courses internationally recognise the validity of action research approaches, which embody professional wisdom as well as technical know-that and practical know-how.

Personal enquiry and forms of self study are acknowledged as equally valuable forms of research as traditional empirical investigations. Some organisations are developing programmes of personal reflective practice as frameworks for organisational learning.

This reconceptualisation of what constitutes valid educational theory and research, with its emphasis on the person-centred, open-ended nature of living systems, is accompanied by a growing awareness of the need for increased access to opportunity for all. Professional development programmes increasingly take the form of distance learning, modularisation, flexible learning, personal self study, all addressing the needs of the learner within particular contexts. New technologies are contributing to new ways of learning, with the development of ecolleges and e-learning processes. These developments are new, and appropriate ways have to be developed for sustaining educative conversations using multimedia technologies (for important innovative work, see http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~mfarren/ and http://www.living-actionresearch.net).

There are significant opportunities for action researchers to have their professional learning accredited through award-bearing courses. These awards can be Masters and Doctoral degrees.

The influence of action research around the world is significant. There is a real awareness that if governments wish their citizens to become productive and adaptive workforces in the 21st Century, professional learning has to be given the highest priority, and supported by democratic structures that value individual learning as the basis for collective practices.

End note Dear friend, I hope you like what you have read so far. If you have any suggestions about how the text might be improved, do contact me by e-mail on jeanmcniff@mac.com Also, if you have ideas for further pages, please let me know. I already have some in process, but perhaps what appears here is sufficient for just now.

Thanks for your reading, thanks for your company.

Best wishes, Jean McNiff

What's New

NEW BOOK AVAILABLE NOW! NEW BOOK AVAILABLE NOW! JEAN MCNIFF'S (2010) ACTION RESEARCH FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: CONCISE ADVICE FOR NEW (AND EXPERIENCED) ACTION RESEARCHERS. DORSET, SEPTEMBER BOOKS. PLEASE GO TO WWW.SEPTEMBER-BOOKS.COM FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. THIS BOOK IS A BRAND NEW PRODUCTION AND HAS LOTS OF EXAMPLES, EXERCISES AND REALLY PRACTICAL ADVICE THAT ENGAGES WITH FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT ACTION RESEARCH. IT GIVES A CONCISE THEORETICAL OVERVIEW FOR ACTION RESEARCH AS WELL AS OUTLINING ITS HISTORICAL ROOTS. I HOPE YOU ENJOY IT! Go to www.september-books.com to order and to see further information about the book and its contents.

Conferences Read about accepted proposals for the British Educational Research Conference 2010 the Collaborative Action Research Conference 2010 previously unavailable papers from a range of conference presentations new papers for imminent conference presentations and much more...

Read More... © 2012 Jean McNiff | jeanmcniff@mac.com site design: plexus © 2009-10