Dissidence,difference and diversity in action research

This article served two purposes. First and foremost, it gave the author an opportunity to re-visit, and acknowledge, some ways in which her professional relationship with John Elliott and other professional friends influenced her work in action research. Second, it enabled the author to revisit current ideas held in two areas of interest that have, over the years, grown out of departure from, as well as identification with, John's own work. The first relates to the personal and emotional dimensions of theory in action research and the second, to issues of methodological creativity. In re-visiting these two areas of interest, the author tries to synthesise them in a new way in order to explore the connections between the personal, the emotional and the innovative in action research methodology. In this, the article attempts to link issues related to the ‘I’ of the action researcher with the ‘we’ of the collaborative research group. It is argued that our ‘self’ is implicated deeply in action research methodology, whatever form that might take. The emotional and social climate in which the ‘I’ operates is consequential. This means that we need to take a holistic view of the action researcher as person, and of collaborative colleagues as enablers and supporters, if we are to optimise the powers that can be brought to the process of enquiry and change. The article also tries to be ‘true’ to the notion that one's ideas, theories and work are shaped by what Wayne Booth calls ‘the company we keep’.     

Researching in school – creating a meaningful school/university alliance: a reflection

This paper reflects upon the experience of carrying out a piece of action research as a university academic, in partnership with a primary school. It considers roles and responsibilities, agendas, dynamics, ethical dilemmas and issues of voice. It contextualises the research within a field where educational research continues to be conceptualised as the ‘poor relation.’ In light of this, it explores the richness and value to be found in rejecting positivist tradition and re-imagining the research process as one of uniqueness and ‘dissensus’ whereby learning happens through collaborative shared-learning encounters. It concludes that research relationships such as these can illuminate new understandings in ways that are not only rich and enduring but often unforeseen.     

Work-Based Knowledge,Evidence-Informed Practice and Education

ABSTRACT:?

This paper starts from an examination of an epistemological framework that underpins practice in particular educational contexts. It examines work-based knowledge, relating this to practitioner research and evidence informed practice. This is followed by an exploration of arguments that call for increased rigour in educational research as well as the use of systematic reviews. The paper examines tensions within educational research located in particular institutional contexts which draw upon ‘post-modern’ conceptualisations of practice, setting these against research concerned with generalisability that veers towards traditional positivist claims. The paper concludes by suggesting that such arguments readily fold back into a conservative empiricism and a more appropriate position should be based upon dialogue across a range of constituents. However, such a notion needs to recognise social antagonism as well as aspirations towards the deepening of notions of social justice.     

The politics and context of calls for cross‐sectoral collaborative research

This paper focuses on the contemporary trend towards cross‐sectoral education research as a policy issue. It looks at the basis of the claims for collaborative research and questions the genesis of the press for these moves, the efficacy of some of the claims, and the largely unexamined source of what is becoming a fashionable tendency. The attempt is to try and get ‘inside’ the concept in the sense of understanding what it is that is driving calls for collaborative research as a broad policy issue, rather than ‘standing off and describing it.     

Making space for democracy through assessment and feedback in higher education: thoughts from an action research project in education studies

This paper reports on an action research project into the development of a ‘democratic feedback model’ with students on an education studies programme at a post-1992 university in the UK. Building on work that has explored the dialogic dimensions of assessment and feedback, the research explored the potential for more democratic practice in this area. Although much learning and teaching on the programme in question took a collaborative and dialogic approach, assessment and feedback were modelled entirely differently, around the concept of an ‘expert’ marker and ‘novice’ marked. The findings of the research indicate the elements necessary for ‘democratic feedback’, and illustrate the emotional impact of moving from more transmission-based models, grounded in notions of expertise, towards democratic practice. They also highlight the ways in which such work can alert students to the imperfect, messy and human nature of the assessment process. Although the model has limited applicability in its extant form, its constitutive elements might be usefully incorporated within existing practice to promote democratic learning.     

Does Action Research Have a Future? A Reply to Higgins

This paper presents a view of action research (AR) as a valuable way in which teachers can pose fertile questions and engage in inquiry with transformative possibilities. This counters claims of its being at best a sterile method of teacher research and at worst a perilous trap for teachers.Chris Higgins has argued that AR has lost its original intention of empowering teachers and sealing the theory practice divide. He claims that it has degenerated into a method devoid of thought. In its social science versions, it is harmful to the teacher–student relationship and teachers have been mislead into an impoverished idea of professional development. The impossible challenge for action research is to recover its original intention; impossible because the landscape of educational policy militates against it. The authors challenge Higgin's deep pessimism, his versions of AR and his negative account of the intellectual capacity of teachers. We argue that AR does empower teachers, integrates theory and practice and is alive and well, even though conditions in schools are not optimum. This argument is exemplified with numerous illustrations of actual AR projects, which evidence teachers’ participatory and collaborative work, in which they engage in positive change. There is scope for teachers wishing to develop ‘customised’ AR projects of their own in current conditions which have transformative potential in changing the practice of the individual teacher. This in turn supports building and participating in a ‘community of practice’, which strengthens the communal endeavour to contribute to good teaching and good education.     

Talk as action in ‘collaborative action research’: making and taking apart teacher/researcher relationships

This article considers the role of university researchers in a project aimed at developing inclusive practices in schools through collaborative action research. It tells the story of how these researchers became part of the action in one school—Beechbank Primary—through visits, the collection and reporting of data, and through the development of a relationship (particularly with the head teacher) that facilitated learning and change to take place. One of the issues highlighted is that it is in the process of setting up an action research project that many disturbances are evident and, perhaps, inevitable. We argue that it is in working with these disturbances that one might begin to establish the basis of a collaborative relationship, rather than implying that collaboration may result in such things. The approach taken in the section ‘Beechbank Story’ is a conscious departure from the investigations conducted as a consequence of audit mechanisms, where only particular measurable outcomes, designated in advance, constitute evidence of ‘progress’. We focus instead on process and hope to illustrate the small shifts and changes, documented ethnographically, which we argue are essential if change is to take place in the culture of a school.     

Pathways to co-impact: action research and community organising

This article introduces the concept of ‘co-impact’ to characterise the complex and dynamic process of social and economic change generated by participatory action research (PAR). It argues that dominant models of research impact tend to see it as a linear process, based on a donor-recipient model, occurring at the end of a project following the take-up and use of findings. PAR challenges this approach, as impact is embedded in cycles of the action research process; the distinction between researchers, research informants and research users is blurred; and micro process-based impacts, including changes in the thinking and practices of co-researchers, are as significant as findings-based changes in policy and practice. A conceptual framework is developed, based on a three-fold distinction between ‘participatory’, ‘collaborative’ and ‘collective’ impact. This is applied to a case study action research project, Debt on Teesside, working with low-income households in North-east England. The project is analysed in terms of participatory impact (e.g. developing skills of participating households, mentor-researchers, and university staff); collaborative impact (e.g. findings-based changes in thinking, policies and practices of advice, community finance and housing agencies, and local authorities resulting from collaborative research); and ‘collective impact’, adapted from the field of social interventions, which involves organisations collectively targeting specific actions based on research (e.g. changing policy and practices of lenders and government relating to high-cost loans).     

Emotions and reflexivity in feminised education action research

The paper addresses contemporary relations between emotions, gender and feminist action research. Starting from analysis of the increasing emotionalisation of everyday life, it explores the quasi‐feminist—or what the author calls ‘feminised’—forms of incitement to reflexive confession that are increasingly gaining favour within professional and higher educational contexts and draws on literatures and sets of debates that inform education action research, including: childhood and governmentality; feminist research; and international development critiques. The author proposes that reflexivity as an educational and research practice has come to stand in for, and thereby limits, the contemporary focus on ‘participation’ to reduce its radical collaborative and action agenda and instead incite researchers to work on ourselves, and only on ourselves. The paper warns against underestimating the speed and flexibility by which neo‐liberalism absorbs and co‐opts creative strategies—such as reflexivity—for its subversion, and returns them to old‐style individualism.     

‘Working the ruins’ of collaborative feminist research

In this paper, I enact an ‘inquiry among the ruins’ of a collaborative feminist duoethnography. Through the process of exploring instances of failure, I aim to (re)think ‘collaborative’ research, feminist goals for collaborative research, and a space for such research in the academy. As I work the ruins of a duoethnography, I read failures as a series of paradoxical ‘betrayals’ in hopes of being ‘accountable to complexity’ so to open up spaces for new ways of theorizing and practicing collaborative feminist research.     

Socialising Epistemic Cognition

We draw on recent accounts of social epistemology to present a novel account of epistemic cognition that is ‘socialised’. In developing this account we foreground the: normative and pragmatic nature of knowledge claims; functional role that ‘to know’ plays when agents say they ‘know x’; the social context in which such claims occur at a macro level, including disciplinary and cultural context; and the communicative context in which such claims occur, the ways in which individuals and small groups express and construct (or co-construct) their knowledge claims. We frame prior research in terms of this new approach to provide an exemplification of its application. Practical implications for research and learning contexts are highlighted, suggesting a re-focussing of analysis on the collective level, and the ways knowledge-standards emerge from group-activity, as a communicative property of that activity.     

The Action Researcher as Chameleon

This paper describes how the constraints and problems the writers faced in a large scale action research project problematised their use and development of formal theory. In particular we address the issues around building collaborative agenda, reconnaissance, dissemination of ‘findings’ and ‘jump starting’ institutional change. The writers argue that action researchers within their praxis need to be more aware of the dialectical relationship between formal theory and the context of action research; in that theory is conditioned by the very context it seeks to change.     

National policy and the development of inclusive school practices: a case study

National education policy in England under New Labour Governments has encompassed both a ‘standards agenda’ and an ‘inclusion agenda’, with schools required to respond to both simultaneously. Some previous studies have seen these agendas as contradictory and have seen schools' efforts to develop inclusive practices as being undermined by these contradictions. This paper questions this account with reference to a primary school participating in a collaborative action research project which aimed to develop inclusive practices in schools. It shows how the school, far from finding these agendas contradictory, drew on both in making sense of its situation. It argues that the development of inclusive practices may draw on national policy as a productive resource, and suggests that inclusion scholars and advocates may need to refocus their work if they are to offer such schools alternatives to the formulations of national policy.     

The value and valuing of continuing professional development: current dilemmas,future directions and the case for action research

This paper explores and challenges the rationale for current, mainstream approaches to teachers’ continuing professional development (CPD) within schooling systems. Such approaches are significantly influenced by neoliberal and managerial pressures, evident in advocacy for generic, individualistic models of teacher learning, often focused on specific state-sanctioned domains. The paper draws upon a précis of recent action research literature, and empirical research from Sweden, to argue for an alternative paradigm, based on the practices and principles of participatory and collaborative action research. Action research is not presented as a simplistic ‘method’ which can be ‘applied’ regardless of context, but is explicitly focused on situated, specific, local sites. While more managerial and neoliberal practices can close down debates necessary for effecting real improvements in practice, evidence suggests action research, in its emancipatory iterations, enables a rich conception of educational practice which cannot be ‘managed’ into existence by a simplistic application of ‘what works.’     

Growing Talent for Inclusion: using an appreciative inquiry approach into investigating classroom dynamics

This paper reports on an Appreciative Inquiry project called ‘Growing Talent for Inclusion’ which has been running since 2002. The project grew out the authors’ work in a Local Authority Support Service assisting schools to meet the needs of pupils with a range of additional educational needs. Faced with a large number of individual referrals, many relating to the emotional, social and behavioural needs of pupils, it was considered that an eco – systemic approach was required and that a priority was to support pupils and teachers in developing more effective and satisfying interpersonal relationships in the classroom. ‘Growing Talent for Inclusion’ uses Appreciative Inquiry to investigate a management change process which has been used within large organisations and communities but less commonly at classroom level. It is a type of action research which is solution not problem focused and therefore lends itself well to a research focus of improving classroom dynamics. The paper introduces a 4‐D Cycle of Appreciative Inquiry: discovery, dream, design and deliver, as advocated by Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987, which guides the identification, acknowledgment and amplification of skills pertinent to improving social dynamics within the classroom and discusses the methodological issues which arise from this collaborative, participative form of inquiry. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods has been used to identify and track the development of attributes for improving working relationships in four different primary and secondary classrooms in three schools. 76 pupils and four teachers have been involved in the project since its inception in 2002 with classes in a further three primary schools using the approach during the academic year 2005–2006. Findings from the project show an increase in the number of pupils with whom other pupils are happy to work, a reduction in the number of pupils identified as socially excluded at the beginning of the project and enhanced capacity of the group in terms of the talents identified for growth. Feedback from staff and students also suggests that the process of noticing and acknowledging strengths has contributed to improvements in working relationships.     

Educational action research as the quest for virtue in teaching

Curriculum aims often remain unrealised aspirations. This is because the values and principles implicit in them fail to get articulated in forms that can effectively inform and guide the practice of teaching. Ideas such as ‘learner-centred education’, ‘independent/autonomous learning’, ‘self-directed learning’, ‘enquiry/discovery learning’, ‘collaborative learning’, ‘active learning’ and ‘learning with understanding’ refer to critical aspects of the learning process rather than its outcomes. While often enthusiastically embraced by teachers, they rarely get realised in appropriate forms of virtuous action. Such is the power of an outcomes-based model of teaching and learning to shape the practice of teaching. This paper cites examples of curriculum design that specify the pedagogical values and principles implicit in various educational aims, and shows how they can provide a basis for practical experiments by teachers in their classrooms and schools, in a quest to transform their teaching into concrete forms of virtuous action. Indeed, the paper depicts a number of actual action research projects in which teachers generated some common insights into how to transform their teaching into the practice of virtue in education. It also explores the role of theory-informed action research in developing teaching as a virtuous form of action.     

Lakatos’ Scientific Research Programmes as a Framework for Analysing Informal Argumentation about Socio‐scientific Issues

The purpose of this study is to explore how Lakatos’ scientific research programmes might serve as a theoretical framework for representing and evaluating informal argumentation about socio‐scientific issues. Seventy undergraduate science and non‐science majors were asked to make written arguments about four socio‐scientific issues. Our analysis showed that the science majors’ informal arguments were significantly better than the non‐science majors’ arguments. In terms of the resources for supporting reasons, we find that personal experience and scientific belief are the two categories that are generated most often in both groups of the participants. Besides, science majors made significantly greater use of analogies, while non‐science majors made significantly greater use of authority. In addition, both science majors and non‐science majors had a harder time changing their arguments after participating in a group discussion. In the study of argumentation in science, scholars have often used Toulmin’s framework of data, warrant, backing, qualifiers, claims, and rebuttal. Our work demonstrates that Lakatos’ work is also a viable perspective, especially when warrant and backing are difficult to discern, and when students’ arguments are resistant to change. Our use of Lakatos’ framework highlights how the ‘hard core’ of students’ arguments about socio‐scientific issues does, indeed, seem to be protected by a ‘protective belt’ and, thus, is difficult to alter. From these insights, we make specific implications for further research and teaching.     

Do new information and communications technologies have a role to play in the achievement of education for all?

Many commentators have suggested that the use of new information and communications technologies (ICTs) has significant potential in providing access to, and improving the quality of, teacher education. Such an idea is particularly relevant for the Global South, it is argued, where tens of thousands more qualified teachers are required if universal primary education (UPE) is to be achieved. This article explores six arguments commonly used to critique the relevance of ICT for development, encompassing technical, cost, philosophical, cultural and pedagogic issues. The arguments are categorised as the ‘technological’ view; the ‘donor’ view; the ‘anthropological’ view; the ‘standard’ view; the ‘individual’ view; and the ‘transmissional’ view. Drawing on empirical research into ICT and teacher education in sub‐Saharan Africa, including the work of the Digital Education Enhancement Project, six responses are used to review these arguments (‘developmental’, ‘democratic’, ‘cultural’, ‘deep’, ‘community’ and ‘pedagogic’). The author concludes that these contemporary data offer new ways of thinking about such debates and concludes with recommendations for policy makers, educators and the donor community.     

‘It's like being in a zoo.’ Researching with people with intellectual disability

This paper introduces key debates in the contemporary practice of disability research and examines how these apply to conceptualising, designing and conducting research with people with intellectual disability. Specifically, it describes a collaborative action‐oriented reflexive approach to researching the lived experience of people with intellectual disability in self‐advocacy, offering a ‘reflective reprocessing’ of the methodological traditions, decisions, complexities and inadequacies of approaches to researching with such people. Emphasis on mutuality and the co‐construction of research agendas, interpretative frames and meanings is a method that has rarely been seen in research practice in intellectual disability. The approach described enables a merging of the skills of the ‘researcher’ and the ‘researched’ to create a process of integrated inquiry and reflection. It promises the possibility of new forms of co‐produced social knowledge about intellectual disability and self‐advocacy, with explicitly emancipatory values and assumptions.