To summarise, Koshy (2005) defines action research as a process that generates new knowledge based on enquiries that are conducted in practical contexts. Kwok (2009) study does not generate new knowledge, but merely applies existing knowledge to a new context. Therefore Kwok (2009) produces success in an outcome; Reason and Bradbury (2001) consider working to practical outcomes as the principle to action research. So according to Reason and Bradbury (2001) Kwok’s (2009) study could be classed as action research. The author believes not. Simply put, Kwok’s (2009) study does not follow any action research models.
Action research is based on the epistemology that information is there to be sought and McNiff (2002) firmly cites that action researcher’s posses an epistemology based on a living process, something they can do. This is clearly evident in Kwok (2009) study as she is attempting to improve the living process of her classroom environment. Action research can baffle some, particularly the applied scientists. Bassey (1999) defines action research as the third paradigm. Predominantly research was thought to be of either quantitative or qualitative nature. This stuck the normative and interpretive debate. Scientists are associated with ontological belief that knowledge is out there to be gathered, the hypothesis should be investigated by the methods of natural science; in counter balance, interpretivists base their ontology on playing with the answers and looking for meaning, usually characterized by a concern for the individual. Cohen et al (2007) cites an assimilation of these two paradigms, eclecticism. Cohn et al (2007) extend the notion that this research method contains a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data.
One could argue that action research is indeed the third paradigm, as it cannot clearly be stereotyped into either of the aforementioned ideologies. A vital observation to consider in relation to other paradigms is that the positivist approach takes a moral stance when one must present the conclusion formulated from action research, due to it being conducting in a social setting the researcher can only state that the changes implemented may be as a result of their research due to the very nature of the social setting and often the researcher is a part of the setting. The whole purpose of action research is the formula in which it represents, action equals research and research equals action. One cannot be achieved in isolation. The action is the practical approach and the research is the underpinning theory, this makes action research as favoured method of choice in any vocational sector where by continuing professional development is fundamental to the improvement of practice. Therefore action research compliments the requirement to base practice on evidence and make improvement or drive change. Newby (2010) cites developing and implementing change as a distinctive characteristic of action research. The author feels this is the modern interface of conducting research in a social setting. Kwok (2009) bases her research on a social situation, where change is required and by reflecting and observing and amending her plan, she does witness change and improvement in her setting. This not only informs her practice, but it is improvement for the organisation in tandem. Elliott (2000) would deem Kwok (2009) research to be that of action research, “a study of a social situation with a view to improving the quality of action within it.” This could be interpreted to mean that unless change happens, one cannot be seem to be undertaking action research.
The author in particular critiques the data collection phase of Kwok (2009) study, she does not directly involve participants but rather draws her own observations, and she study is very practitioner focused. Brown and Dowling (1998) state the very ethos of action research discourages taking important decisions other than by direct to the participants. This begins to hold Kwok (2009) study of “action research” under scrutiny. The author offers the idea that Kwok (2009) could be considered continuing professional development rather than action research. After surfing the literature, there appears to be a thin line between improving own practice by generic and every day methods and what constitutes action research. What would appear to differentiate the two is the means by which the research/improvement has been carried out. Has the research followed a model?
There are several models that can be followed when undertaking action research, the earliest formation from Lewin (1930). He formed an action research cycle of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. A rather simplistic model; the issue being that once one has reflected, there maybe a need to revisit and adjust the direction or process that is being utilised in the research. This model was later improved upon by Kemmis (1982) who tailored the model to fit education and infiltrated a revising stage between the reflection and planning stage. A distinct observation with action research is that is not a linear approach, but cyclical. This separates action research from the alternate and complimentary methods such as positivism, where by a set linear process of data collection and analysis is followed. Action research could also be considered a staged process of planning, acting, observing and reflecting, which is then cyclical in nature. It is crucial to remember that this cyclical model occurs because of a response to an issue, therefore reflection and observation must be included in any worthy model so that the researcher has the ability to monitor the change in place. Checkland (1981) summarises characteristics of good action research where by planning before action is a fundamental element, one could question the fundamental nature of this, if action research is research in response to an issue, will planning always be evident? Or will planning naturally occur in the problem solving nature or the issue? Checkland (1981) also implies that action research may not always be cyclical in nature, but then contradicts to site that each cycle will include critical reflection, this maybe true but the contradiction may leave transparency to question the validity of such statement.
If change is so implicit in for research to be considered action research, then a model illustrated by Rollinson et el (1998) should be explored. Rollinson et al (1998) suggests that change occurs when information is obtained from employees/participants involved in the research and analysis of the information is fed back to them, illustrating the action required. Therefore, in a quest for organisation improvement, this model should be highly critiqued and considered. Rollinson et al (1998) model is a cycle of identifying the issue, feedback and analysis with the participants, acting then reviewing and diagnosing again. The success of this model though relies in the onus on the employees/participants taking the action, therefore is this not considered a management model rather than a research model? It is rather prescriptive and strategically phrased. It could be argues that the terminology in the model is dated and more contemporary language falls in line with current practice requirements in education. Terms such as diagnosis signifies there is a prescribed problem, where as the research may be taking place solely to improve rather than solve issues.
Ferrance (2000) cites examples of action research themes included in which are problems in the classroom, Ferrance (2000) suggests that action research is the ideal approach to use to overcome these issues, indeed the same can be said for Kwok (2009). According to Ferrance (2000), Kwok (2009 undertook focused individual teacher research. Interesting though, Ferrance (2000) offers the most comparable model to the traditional linear research approaches and includes a data gathering stage and interpretation stage. These are formalised process’ which may not have a place in action research, Kwok (2009) does not include any formal data gathering stages, and this is due to the nature of the environment and issue she is working with. Most of the data gathered may come from observations, but as action research is based around implementing change and isolating improvement, data gathered can come from naturally occurring evidence as opposed to formally planned like in the neighbouring approaches. However, when seeking to make organisational improvement and change, this model would suit well in gaining operational or central management approval and may also render employees on board by seeing the direct involvement and formalised planning involved. Taking the authors practice as experience, practitioners respond better to change when they are both involved and forewarned. Thomas (2009) offers an applicable model specific to the nursing and teaching sector; he describes action research as a coil or spring method, where the research is carried out in a spiral of steps. These steps consist of having an idea or problem, examining it and gathering data, planning and taking action and then reflecting on the consequences. The author can relate to this model and feels this is identifiable in Kwok (2009) study. She clearly identifies the problem, examines the classroom and environment and then gathers data from literature reviews and observations, she then creates a plan to implement self evaluations and takes the action, and she then reflects on the consequences and adjusts the idea accordingly. This model is excellent to use as a framework for practitioners to improve their practice, but still lacks the involvement and consultation with employees and participants. McNiff (1992) illustrated her own model described as a “research spiral” after conducting her own action research project. Yet again these spiral steps consist of planning, acting, observing and reflecting leading to a re-plan. Wellington (2000) argues that the main difference between contrasting research and action research is the intention to change or improve something; this supports McNiff’s (1992) ideology of planning to change and reflecting on the progress. Reflection is a process done to illustrate a critique of an event/issue, usually within nursing and teaching to see what has gone well, worked, not worked and how a situation or issue could be improved further. The author feels that any worthy claiming model of action research should clearly have a reflective stage, or how could the researcher take stock of the process and progress of the improvement or problem. This is clearly identified in Kwok (2009) study; she takes set time to reflect upon what she has implemented. However, again this corresponds well with the contractual duties of such practitioners and it can be easily understood why positivist researchers hold action research up to scrutiny as a third paradigm.
This would work well used to make organisational improvement or to base leadership changes upon as the reflection gives time for democratic discussion and involvements, hence making the employees more subjective to change.
Regardless of its critics, action research is evidently effective as a methodology. Kwok (2009) sustained improvement within the classroom, and with it’s cyclical nature, improvement is continuously monitored, so any invasions to the change would be quickly identified and rectified, therefore improvement is continuous and sustained. In contrasting paradigms such as positivist and interpretive approaches, there is a definite linear holt to the process. For example, in medicine, research may be carried out on the effects of aspirin in curing headaches. A positivist approach would direct the research around quantitative data, maybe identifying the participants whose headaches were cured by the drug. An interpretive approach may focus on how well they were cured and how taking the drug affected each individual. Both approaches would end with qualitative or quantitative data evaluation, if action research was used as an approach, it may direct the focus on evaluating how effective the drug was, it may investigate what else could be used, either way it would continue until the headaches were cured. The traditional paradigms are associated with concluding the study as apposed to continual monitoring the issue or chance and taking the reins to sustain the improvement or change. This would clearly flag the action research paradigm as the ideal to follow for organisational improvement or leadership development upon which to base practice.
References
Adelman,C (1993) Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research Educational Action Research Vol 1 No 1
Bassey, M (1999) Case Study research in Educational settings Buckingham: open university.
Bell, J (2008) Doing your research project a guide for first time researchers in education, health and social sciences. Buckingham: Open University Press
Brown, A and Dowling, P (1998) doing research/reading research: A mode of interrogation for education. London: The Falmer press
Carr, W and Kemmis, S (1986) Becoming critical: Educational knowledge and action research.London: Farmer Press
Checkland, P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley
Cohen, L Manion, L and Morrison, K (1998) Research methods in education (3rd edition) London: Routledge Farmer
Cohen, L Manion, L and Morrison, K (2007) Research methods in education (6th edition) London: Routledge Farmer:
Dick, B (2000) A beginners guide to action research (online: available at www.scu.edu.ac)
Elliott, J (2000) Action research for educational change Open University Press
Ferrance, E (2000) Action research Brown University: LAB
Ghaye,A and Ghaye, K (1998) Teaching and learning through critical reflective practice London: David Fulton Publishers
Kemmis, S and McTaggart, R (1988) The action research planner Victoria: Deakin University,
Kemmis, S (1982) The action research planner Victoria: Deakin University Press
Koshy, V (2005) Action research for improving practice London: Paul Chapman
Kwok, J (2009) Boys and Reading: An Action research project report Mini Theme: Library Media onnection
Lewin, K (1930) cited in: Adelman,C (1993) Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research Educational Action Research Vol 1 No 1
McNiff, J (1992) Cited in: Wellington, J (2000) Educational Research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches London: Continuum:
McNiff, J (2002) Action Research Principles and practice London: Routledge
Newby, P (2010) Research methods for education Harlow: Pearson.
Reeler, D (2005) Horizontal Learning: Engaging Freedom’s Possibilities (Online: Communications Innovation Website) Cited on:
Reason, H and Bradbury, P (2001) The practice of co-operative inquiry: research with rather than on people London: Sage Publications
Rollinson, D Broadfield, A Edwards, D (1998) Organisational behaviour and analysis. An integrated approach Harlow: Addison-Wesley Longman
Soman, S (2007) Horizontal learning versus Vertical learning (Online: Indian MBA.com) Cited on:
Thomas, G (2009) How to do your research project London: Sage
Wellington, J (2000) Educational Research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches London: Continuum
