Different Methods Used in Action Research

Different Methods Used in Action Research

 

Written by Maggie Coats in Action Research, A Guide for Associate Lecturers. London: The Open University, COBE.2005.pp. 21-23.

Colleagues who are not familiar with action research may recognise other allied approaches to educational research, from the simplest use of feedback questionnaires from their students, through to approaches such as John Heron and Peter Reason’s Human Inquiry in Action (1988), which involve full-blown, cooperative inquiry.

Colleagues who have studied courses such as Personal and Career Development: A portfolio approach, or Professional Judgement and Decision Making, will be familiar with concepts such as Kolb’s learning cycle and Schön’s notion of reflexive practice. These latter ideas seem to have straddled
the disciplines of management, education, practitioner development in health and social welfare and can be found in course materials in various faculties.

It is generally recognised that there is no one method that is ‘right’ for action research. Any method could be used. What makes a piece of research ‘action research’, as opposed to mere audit or evaluation, is the commitment to change. As Bentz and Shapiro (1998) state: ‘Action research is less a separate culture of inquiry than it is a statement of intention and values. The intention is to change a system, and the values are those of participation, self-determination,empowerment through knowledge, and change.’

Given this as the broad aim, the choice of method may be more to do with the nature of the problem that one is seeking to understand and explain. For example, if there is genuine uncertainty about two approaches to teaching something, it may be appropriate to set up an experiment where one group of students is taught by one method, and the other by another.

The parameters surrounding experimental method do not need to be adhered to, in the sense of creating a ‘closed system’ with matched groups and no extraneous variables. To make such an approach participatory, the students need to know about the methods and give their informed consent to be allocated arbitrarily to either group. Their feedback, both from the subjective experience and the objective measures set up to test after the learning experience, can be analysed by both tutor and students.

1. Surveys
Surveys have been very widely used in social and educational research. To make them participatory they should ideally involve the students from the earliest stages of design, from the choice of topic through the choice and wording of questions and the execution of the survey and its analysis, whether quantitative or qualitative, structured or open-ended. People who have not had to analyse questionnaire-produced data often assume that question writing is unproblematic. On the contrary, this is an area that requires considerable skill, developed through practice and pilot studies.

2.All varieties of interview
All varieties of interview, from one-to-one to focus group, can be used in participatory ways. The analysis of interview material is also considerably more challenging and time-consuming than many people realise.

3. Content and discourse analysis
Content and discourse analysis could be used to examine the dialogues that occur in correspondence tuition, whether through pen and paper or electronic communication.

4. Observational and participant observational studies
Observational and participant observational studies can also be organised in an action research context. Sometimes it can be useful for ALs to reflect on their own experiences as students in the Open University system (a staff development option). This can lead to useful analyses of the lecturer/student
relationships by focusing on the problems around correspondence tuition, meeting deadlines, tutorial participation and so on, that are particular to the demands of the distance learning environment.

General categories of method
In the Open University, tutor support materials offer many specific examples of approaches to assessment of the educational process. A useful list appears in Appendix 1 to the Open Teaching Toolkit: How do I know I am doing a good job? (Hewitt, Lentell, Phillips and Stevens, 1997, pp. 34-36.) This gives a ‘Range of Methods Available’, starting with the idea of an ‘Action Research Network’ described as:
‘A group of colleagues (perhaps those who are responsible for a course) agree to work together as a network to improve teaching/learning. Collaboration and networking imply a willingness to communicate and to share ideas and professional practice, disseminate outcomes, engage in critical reflection [and] produce resources in partnerships.’ (p.34.)

Also listed are routine aspects of Open University practice, such as ‘Monitoring of correspondence tuition’.The latter could lend itself to specific action research projects akin to those described in the publications of George and Cowan, which detail approaches used in specific projects.

Three levels of action research as proposed by Peter Reason
In Creative Management (ed. Henry, 2001), Reason’s paper ‘Learning and change through Action Research’ identifies three broad strategies. These may be helpful to ALs considering possible levels of engagement with such work:
‘First-person action research/practice skills and methods address the ability of the researcher to foster an inquiring approach to his or her own life, to act awarely and choicefully, and to assess effects in the outside world while acting.’ (Reason, in Henry, 2001, p.185.)
We can relate these ideas to notions of the ‘reflective practitioner’ commonly found in management,health, social welfare and other decision-making situations where the reflection is based on evidence and leads to action.

Reason’s second level involves others:
‘Second-person action research/practice addresses our ability to inquire face-to face with others into issues of mutual concern – for example in the service of improving our personal and professional practice… [It] is also concerned with how to create communities of inquiry or learning organisations.’(ibid.)

This is exemplified by the networking over action research, which is being encouraged in the OU through staff development meetings, where participants are paired or grouped to discuss possible small-scale projects. Here the ALs carrying out the enquiry determine the nature of the research and the methods
used.

Larger and longer-term examples in the Open University include the Higher Education Learning Development Project (George, 2001), which brought together associate lecturers from various regions and students from different courses. Here the research methods were determined before the participants were
recruited, although both tutors and students had considerable freedom in how they responded.

Second level activity could well merge into Reason’s third level, especially given the continuing development of electronic communication:
‘Third-person research practice aims to create a wider community of inquiry involving persons who,because they cannot be known to each other face-to-face (say, in a large, geographically dispersed corporation), have an impersonal quality.’ (ibid.)

Reason points out that ‘the fullest kind of action research will engage all three strategies’ and it is easy to imagine this possibility in the Open University context.

Collaborative approaches to action research
As noted in our discussion above, collaboration is often highlighted as a desirable feature of action research and indeed, some writers, such as Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), argue that the approach is action research only when it is collaborative.

Carr and Kemmis (1986) interpret this by saying that an action research project should involve:
‘…those responsible for the practice in each of the moments of the activity, widening participation of
the project gradually to include others affected by the practice, and maintaining collaborative control
of the process.’ (pp.165-6)
However we interpret the word ‘collaborative’, for example as collaboration between practitioners or as collaboration between one tutor and the students involved in the enquiry, a collaborative approach to action research has attractions. When the research is undertaken in collaboration with colleagues it not only addresses our perennial problem - the ‘loneliness of the AL’- but there are other advantages too. These are summarised by Burns (1999) as follows:
‘Collaborative action research processes strengthen the opportunities for the results of research on
practice to be fed back into educational systems in a more substantial and critical way. They have the advantage of encouraging teachers to share common problems and to work cooperatively as a research community to examine their existing assumptions, values and beliefs within the sociopolitical cultures of the institutions within which they work. Policies and practices within the organisation are more likely to be opened up to change when such changes are brought about through group processes and collective pressures.’ (p.13.)
Alhough Burns is here describing teachers working within schools (as are many of the writers cited thus
far) what she says applies equally to our own teaching and learning context.

Reference
Bentz, V.M. & Shapiro, J. (1998). Mindful Inquiry in Social Research. London, Sage.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge, CUP.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action research. Lewes,Falmer Press.
George, J. (2001). Higher Education Development Project. Final Report.
Henry, J. (ed.) (2001). Creative Management Reader. Sage/OUBS.
Hewitt, P., Lentell, H., Phillips, M. & Stevens, V. (1997). How do I know I am doing a good job? Open Teaching Toolkit.
Reason, P. (2001). Learning and Change through Action Research. In Creative Management Reader, ed.J. Henry, Sage/OUBS.