Recent Posts
- Group 2 – Article 8: Fostering Inclusivity Through Teaching and Learning Action Research
- Group 1 – Article 8: Fostering Inclusivity Through Teaching and Learning Action Research
- Group 1 – Article 7: The Cyclical Process of Action Research
- Group 2 – Article 7: The Cyclical Process of Action Research
- Group 2 – Article 6: Critical Literacy for School Improvement: An Action Research Project
This article is taken from the inaugural issue of the journal Action Research, and builds on responses from the editorial board to the question of “Why action research?” The article begins with a definition of action research, as well as a brief history of its emergence. Action research is built on a commitment to “democratic social change,” (13) which involves bringing together theory and practice. It seeks to understand and bring about change through processes that include and are shaped by the people and communities who are being directly affected by the research, and in this way is democratic. In action research, theory is developed from practice, and its purpose is simply to support practice aimed at “positive social change” (15). Those who are involved in action research tend to have several things in common, such as a commitment to bring about actual change and a certain optimism. Generally, they are motivated by their political commitments. Action research is currently in a stronger place than it has been for some time, but it still faces numerous challenges. Action researchers now have to work to face those challenges, and build on their increased presence and acceptance, without cutting themselves off from their “radical roots” (25).
There are several issues that stuck out to me while reading through this article. Generally, I found myself supportive of action research, as with anything else that legitimately challenges positivism. It seems that action researchers are quite the Mavericks, so there is really no choice but to want to join their ranks. However, one criticism would be the noticeable lack in the underlying theory, which the authors did recognize. They state that “There is much work left to be done in adequately articulating strong theoretical foundations for our work as action researchers” (16). Somewhat related to this lack, it seems that the definition of action research which they provide towards the beginning of the article begs a lot of questions. What are “worthwhile human purposes?” What constitutes “flourishing?” These are ideas and words that require definitions, or narratives. As I was reading, I kept wondering about the meaning of frequently used words such as “justice,” which is more plastic than the authors’ seem to acknowledge. I appreciate their rejection of the idea that “in order to be credible, research must remain objective and value-free” (11). But, I would argue that there is a need to clearly and cogently articulate the values they seek to acknowledge bringing into their research. So, when Ian Hughes is quoted as saying “I choose action research because I believe in old fashioned virtues like compassion and truth,” (15) don’t we need to be clear about what those words mean. I would argue that we no longer have a shared understanding of virtue.
In the context of the classroom, I see the benefit of action research. Teachers need to be engaged, with their students, in bringing about meaningful change. At the same time, stepping back and asking fundamental questions about what we mean by words like “justice,” will potentially influence the changes we seek.
As Chris mentions in his blog post, when reading the lofty ideals discussed in this article, it is hard to argue with “joining the ranks” of action research. Yet, I completely agree with Chris’s sentiment that there is a great deal of beautiful language and an impassioned vision about action research, but there is not enough “sound theory” to back up the grandiose language surrounding it. Maybe I am being too cynical, but I was turned-off by a lot of the word-choice in this article’s and even felt that the authors were coming off self-righteous. That is not to say that I don’t believe in and agree with the merits of action research. As I wrote in the blog for our other assignment, I am more attracted to action research than traditional educational research. I feel this way because, as Chris says, action research “legitimately challenges positivism.” It also empowers educators to address issues unique to their specific teaching contexts in a timely manner. I further agree with Chris’s opinion that in order to make the information in this article more accepted by teachers who think a bit more pragmatically (maybe that’s me), the writers should focus on concretely defining the ideals to which they so frequently mention: “democratic process;” “basic values;” and “dynamic,” “unstable,” and “chaotic” worldview.
Chris, I enjoyed reading your review, and I find it interesting how both you and Rachel were critical of the lofty language that was used in this article. I don’t disagree with either of you, but don’t you think this is an argument that can be applied to all social sciences, not just specifically action research? Any domain that by nature is not based in hard facts and science I think is plagued with the issue of terminology that is sometimes unclear or can be manipulated in a variety of ways. That being said, I do agree that this article was perhaps a bit too heavy on the idealistic language side, but I do not think it is a criticism that is enough to set action research beneath any other style of research in the social sciences.
While I agree with Chris (and Rachel), I think Samantha brought up a good point. Jargon is present in numerous domains and can be both intimidating and irritating to outsiders. However, I do think that many of the terms the authors used need to be more clearly defined. Clear and effective communication is hard enough without the issue of ill-defined terms. Two people could be under the assumption that they are talking about the same thing and are in agreement when the opposite is true. Moreover, I really appreciate that Chris recognized and pointed out the need for the authors to clearly define the values that they bring along with them into their research. As action researchers, the authors do not deny that they are not perfectly objective and that they come to the table with their personal values. These not only need to be recognized by the researchers but need to be clearly defined so that those who are reviewing the research are able to determine whether they have adversely affected the participants and/or results. Action research is already under scrutiny, without clearly defined terminology the value and quality of the research will continue to be questioned.
Chis, Rachel, Samantha and Lindsey: I enjoyed reading your responses and thoughts on the article. Chris thank you for you insight on this article. I agree that language was indeed one-sided and the author was not critical at all about action research. I felt that the choice in words were at times hard to follow and as Lindsey stated it needed to be better defined on what he was trying to address.
However, I am a big believe in learning by doing and action research allows this to happen in the classroom. Every day as a teacher I often reflect and think “why is this happening…” or “what if I changed…” I feel that the idea of gaining knowledge in your everyday practice can create change to one’s pedagogy and supports to the students to find greater success. Action research does have a place in research and the results could be more beneficial because it affects all involved in the study right away.