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 seeks to define action research and explain its cyclical nature as it relates to the philosophical principles of the French scholar, Gilles Deleuze. Basic characteristics of action research are first defined: it is not always valued, it involves a variety of different disciplines, it is context specific, and it aims to bring about change. The cyclical nature of action research is also discussed. The article explains that action research’s planning, executing, and conclusion forming does not always occur in the same order nor happen in the same way. The process is on-going, without a predetermined start and end. The article describes all of these characteristics in depth, yet none of this foundational information was new to me, as similar definitions are described in other scholarly articles.
This article really started to diverge from other scholarly perspectives when it connected the foundational characteristics of action research to Deleuzian concepts. One Deleuzian idea is that in any situation there exists “two interactive dimensions of reality.” Actual reality includes both tangible and intangible people, places, and things. For example, my tangible dog Hassie is part of actual reality. When Hassie eats toilet paper and I get frustrated, that intangible emotion is also part of actual reality. Furthermore, it is important to understand that actual reality is always changing. Using the same example, Hassie’s physical appearance changes when he gets soggy in the rain. Hassie’s behaviors also change. He is happy after a run but sour when he hasn’t had enough exercise. In comparison, virtual reality is harder to define because it is subconscious. It is what creates the changes that are observed in actual reality. It is also what drives creativity. The article further explains, “Thinking is actual, but thought itself is virtual.” Connecting these two realities to action research, the problem being studied is part of the actual reality. Yet, the cyclical process of problem identification, data observation, and solution creation are part of the virtual reality.
Other Deleuzian concepts are explained within the context of research. First, “the majoritarian and the minoritorian.” Traditional, formal research is considered majoritarian because it follows a fixed process with clear starting and ending points. The process of action research is minoritorian, not because it is a “minor” endeavor, but because its process are ever evolving based on its situation. Second, “an apprenticeship to signs.” Signs refer to feedback from the environment under study. “Apprenticeship refers to how the researcher observes, collects and acts upon this feedback. In action research, feedback is sometimes totally unexpected. Therefore, there is no prior knowledge for the researcher to explain it, and he or she must use creativity to explain it. This further perpetuates the cycle of new questions formulating in an action research study. Third, “a reciprocal dialectic of continuous becoming.” This refers to the action researcher and the action research project being two distinct, yet codependent, entities. While the project examines a phenomenon in the real world, the project itself does not exist without the mind of the researcher. The goal of action research is change, and this requires the application of human thought.
I consider myself a pretty pragmatic person. Typically, I start to withdraw from writing that uses words like “existential,” omnipresent,” and “mystical.” Yet, while this article was a little difficult to comprehend, I really liked the abstract ideas expressed in it. Many of the Deleuzian concepts resonated with my personal experiences in education. For one, the article says that in action reasearcg, the relationship between actual and virtual reality can help people “break free” from behaviors of habit. Schools and teachers are often attached to tradition, or habit. Educators are often reluctant to try a new organizational or pedagogical strategy. Therefore, participating in action research, interacting with two realities, can help habit-bound educators find new and better ways of working.
Another concept I find very useful is the relationship between problems and solutions. Deleuze believes that problems are not one-off issues. Problems are inherent in all parts of life. Without problems, people will have no reason to think. No new knowledge will emerge, and creativity will cease to exist. This is such a refreshing perspective, especially for schools which are often fraught with “problems.”
How can we convince teachers that problems aren’t bad, and solutions are infinite? How do we make this mindset a part of daily practice? I would love to foster this perspective at my school.
One “problem” that has caused tension among my peers surrounds reinforcing a consistent approach to behavior management. Some teachers are in support of traditional consequences, like detention. Other teachers support more progressive reparations, like Restorative Justice. It would be helpful if we all could reframe our thinking and realize that the solution is not one approach or the other. There could be infinite other behavior management solutions waiting for our faculty to explore and create them. Has anyone else in this group experienced a contentious educational problem that could have benefited from Deleuzian thinking?
Rachel, wow, you did an amazing job conceptualizing, summarizing, and reflecting on this article. I personally struggled reading this article, and to be honest after having read it I am a bit skeptical about how much I truly “gained” from it. One part of me feels like in making this connection to Deleuzian concepts the authors sort of over-complicate the cyclical nature of action research. That being said, I can also see how making this connection also in many ways legitimizes action research by showing how it can be related to concepts by “one of the most innovative and important philosophers of the 20th century.” While my general thoughts on the article are clearly somewhat conflicted, I do completely agree with you that the Deleuzian perspective on problems and solutions is profound, and it represents an attitude that all educations could likely benefit from acquiring. We tend to have a general fear of problems in education, but I appreciate how this way of thinking causes us to realize that essentially without problems there would be no solutions or progress. In answer to your question, I do not think teacher attitudes can be changed by simply trying to convince them that problems aren’t bad. Instead, perhaps we need to start by adapting this attitude ourselves and leading by example, then maybe others will choose to change their attitudes as well.
edit: “…it represents an attitude that all educators* could likely benefit from acquiring.”
In this article, John S. Drummond and Markus Themessl-Huber seek to provide readers with a better understanding of the cyclical process of action research. To do so they provide an explanation of the work of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze and its contribution to action research. They begin by providing a brief explanation of action research and its history. Kurt Lewin is known for coining the term ‘action research’. Furthermore, they point out that action research is controversial because many professional and academic research communities discredit it as it does not adhere to the strict methodical standards which regulate scientific research. However, Drummond and Themessl-Huber believe action research is valuable. Lastly, they point out that action research is typically motivated by theoretical standpoints and grounded in participatory practice. The context and the people involved determines the degree to which action research is theory-driven, practice-driven, or a mix of the two.
The authors chose to use a hypothetical scenario as an example rather than a real-life example of an action research project for a couple of reasons. Reading through the abstract and introduction I questioned this choice but ended up agreeing with them after reading the rationale behind their choice. First of all, they chose not to use an action research project as an example because it would be unethical. As Drummond and Themessl-Huber stated, they would have imposed “Deleuzian ideas onto events that had already occurred, including the thoughts, feelings and actions of those involved – (2007, p.433).” Second, it would be a contrived situation. They wanted to create a metaphor “to introduce new ideas into the image of thought that informs the very process of action research (Drummond & Themessl-Huber, 2007, p. 433).” In the end, I think they did a good job of creating a hypothetical scenario that allowed for the application of Deleuze’s aspects related to the cyclical process of action research. My first question to you is two-fold. Do you agree with the authors’ rationale for using a hypothetical scenario and what do you think of the scenario they used?
Turning to Drummond and Themessl-Huber’s discussion of Deleuze’s contributions to action research, at the core of his philosophy is the idea that there are two interactive dimensions of reality – the actual and the virtual. The actual includes things such as cells, trees, stones, people, and more. These are not static, however, but are continuously becoming actualized. This is because there are constantly factors effecting the actual and no two people think in the exact same way about the actual. Furthermore, Deleuze wants people to think beyond representational explanations or interpretations of events. On the other hand, the virtual are things beyond the grasp of consciousness. Deleuze makes it clear that the virtual is still real however. “Yet what returns from the virtual in the process of actualization is determined by how we relate to and what we affirm in the actual – hence transcendental empiricism (Drummond & Themessl-Huber, 2007, p.435).”
The four aspects of Deleuze’s philosophy that the authors apply to action research in an effort to better explain its cyclical process include: 1) the majoritorian and the minoritorian; 2) the relation between problems and solutions; 3) an apprenticeship to signs; and 4) a reciprocal dialectic of continuous becoming. First of all, action research is more minoritorian in nature because it is more open-ended, involves direct engagement, and is creative rather than being fixed or static. However, it is still important to note that this creativity and direct engagement involves sense, method, and thought. Second, action research often begins with a problem. There may or may not be a clear solution to the problem, but the exploration of the problem always results in increased thinking and the generation of new ideas. Moreover, the solution will bring some aspects of the problem into clarity and send others into obscurity. This is the essence the cyclical process. Third, as the project is planned, and the events unfold they demand engagement, which results in learning on the part of the researcher. This learning allows the project to progress forward. In addition, the focus is on the feedback the researchers receive as a result of the events rather than the end results. This feedback allows the researchers to develop a deeper understanding of the issue at hand, rethink and generate new ideas, and make necessary changes. Again, this allows the project to progress forward. Finally, the last aspect refers to the fact that the researchers may gain just as much as the contributions they make in addressing the problem at the focus of the project. The researchers will learn and grow as a result of their work, and at least help to enact change for the better.
In conclusion, I personally did not find this article helpful in increasing my understanding of the cyclical process of action research. I found this article and Deleuze’s ideas to be a bit too abstract. As stated earlier, the hypothetical scenario did help because it gave me a mental image to support the ideas presented, but again, overall, I do not feel that it added anything to my knowledge of the process of action research. This may have been different if I had more experience with action research. What about you? Do you think you have a better understanding of action research in general, and more specifically its cyclical process after reading this article?
Hi everyone,
Please note that both Rachel and Lindsey wrote a lead post for this article.
For those who have not yet responded to the lead posts, please make sure that at least one you respond to Lindsey’s lead blog.
I will start by saying that I am not a big fan of Deleuze. As for the lead blogs, you both did a good job of summarizing the article. The article sought to use aspects of Deleuze’s thought to enrich the process of cyclical research. I am not sure how helpful the endeavor was. At the very least, I am with Lindsey, in that I did not gain much in my understanding of the cyclical process of action research.
Thank you Rachel! I appreciate your summary. I actually had a hard time following the article and I left the article feeling like I did not have the best understanding of how the cyclical nature of action research, like Chis and Lindsey both said.
I appreciate your question on problems. Many times (myself included) we hear that there is a problem and we get defensive. However, when there is a problem we can find a solution! Action research helps provide this. After you find a solution to your problem you most likely have identified a new problem during that study. Which makes it cyclical.
One “problem” the Lower School has debated is homework. When it is appropriate and if we give too much. I think this needs to be a discussion in our school and there could be a better approach to homework and how it is given. Maybe more choices? I think we could all benefit from a discussion and reframing everyone’s thinking to see that there could be more than 1 solution.