1. ACTION RESEARCH

2. Rough Guide to Action Research
This slide gives Isobel’s personal view,
as a busy person doing research ‘on the side’
Action Research is very good, BUT …
• Even experienced researchers find it demanding.
• I view it as an aspiration or an ideal, not a benchmark.
• When I do bits of Action Research, that’s good.
• When I don’t, I explain:
– Why Action research would have been better.
– What I actually did, and why (no time, thought of it too late...)
– How my results might have been better.
– What I’d do next time…

3. ACTION RESEARCH (McNiff et al 1996)
Action research is a method devised for professionals
who wanted to:
• improve their own practice.
• contribute to public knowledge about how to do their job.
Action research is now used for other research problems:
wherever objective logic alone cannot provide the answers.
Because it requires subjective interpretation of events,
action research must maintain the highest quality of:
• enquiry
• action
• validation
• results

4. ENQUIRY
Enquiry must be systematic and critical.
We ask the research question: ‘How can I improve ...?’
As research proceeds we refine the question.
A systematic plan documents what we are looking for.
The plan changes as we learn. We must explain why.
In order to be critical, we must be willing to change:
• what we do, how we do it and why.
• how we think and what we pay attention to.
We must be willing to listen and accept other people’s viewpoints.
Seek ideas / suggestions / theories / models / problems / issues from:
• the literature (textbooks, academic journals, the law, the press...
• other practitioners (colleagues, people in other professions,...
• beneficiaries (clients/users)

5. ACTION
Action must be involved, informed and overtly intentional.
As an action researcher, you should:
• Be committed to a worthwhile purpose. Explore and defend values.
• Respectfully involve others as collaborators (not subjects).
• Collect valid data according to a systematic plan.
• Monitor the data as it is collected and use it to:
• Identify issues, make claims, suggest theories and models
• Amend research plan to test new issues / claims / theories / models.
• Explore new issues, construct and test new theories and models.
• Regularly write:
– authentic descriptions of researcher’s actions and feelings.
– explanations of possible meanings + motives.

6. VALIDATION
Self validation:
• Look back at early questions + assumptions. What has changed?
• Can you now live out your values more effectively now?
• Can you rationally describe your professional learning?
Peer validation: Do colleagues take your new knowledge seriously?
Up-liner validation: Can you prove to managers that your way is better?
Can you convince them to support dissemination of your work?
Client validation: Do customers see a difference? /get better service?
Academic validation: Start by presenting your ideas to a local interest
group.
• Re-read McNiff et al chapter 7, before trying to publish.
• Join with others to publish at conference > in refereed journal.
General public:
• Are any of your ideas more widely applicable / interesting?
• Share ideas with friends / family
• Learn to resolve potential misunderstandings.

7. VALIDATION GROUP
WiIl people work together to validate your work?
• Find people: local expert, supporters, critical
friend, independent person.
• Prepare + circulate a short report (1-2pp) on
context, aims, method, outcome.
• Present evidence to support your claims at a
meeting (1 hour approx.)
Ask group members to:
• Identify problems / objections.
• Set conditions.
• Recommend next actions.

8. VALIDATION CRITERIA
1. Intention. Context explained? / question developed? / rationale
clarified?
2. Plan. Is the link between reflection + action established? /
research process transparent? / values demonstrated in practice?
3. Collaborate. Is research role transparent? / collaborative intent
realised?
Are ethical principles applied?
4. Act. Was comprehensive data collected? from different sources?
Patterns + contradictions appreciated? Analysis exposed to critique?
Alternatives considered?
5. Evaluate. Are claims important? Patterns + contradictions appreciated?
Findings related to critical professional discussion?
Explanations convincing+ authenticated? Generate further questions?
6. Report. Terms of reference? Structure? Minimal jargon? Succinct?
Comprehensive? Identify strengths + weaknesses?
Spells out implications? Critical evaluation info. from other sources?
Enough references for readers to follow up their own interests?

9. RESULTS
Results must be clarified and made public.
• Make links between new knowledge and existing knowledge.
• State the researcher’s past experience, acknowledge potential bias.
Make claims and indicate:
• The range of situations in which they have been tested.
• The strength of the results, identifying potential risks.
• A range of other situations to which they might also apply.
Examine your claims against evidence and other people’s judgement.
• Assemble evidence to support each claim.
• Identify arguments against each claim and answer them.
• Use qualitative results to offer explanations and viewpoints.
• Use quantitative results (statistical concepts) to assess confidence.
• Use rich explanations to convey meaning
(self-reflection, dialogue, narrative).

10. ‘I’ am central to action research
Traditionally science expected the researcher to:
• objectively, impersonally stand outside the situation under
observation
• logically, unemotionally interpret results, avoiding any personal bias
Action research asks questions that cannot be answered in this way.
• Questions like : ‘How can I improve the usability of the software I
build?’
• and hence: ‘How can we help everyone to build more usable
software?’
I (the researcher) am committed to this project.
• From the start, I give it meaning.
• Throughout the enquiry I dedicate time and effort.
• Throughout action I am also thinking about the research.
• When I first publish my results, I lay my reputation on the line.
• If my answers are important I’ll want to convince other people.

11. ACTION RESEARCH IS AN
HEROIC JOURNEY
Enquiry is asking questions for which nobody knows the answer.
• I hold myself in a state of uncertainty, so I am open to new answers.
• I must admit that some things I’ve been doing have not been helpful.
• I expect that some of my treasured assumptions will be proved wrong.
Action documents all my mistakes, misunderstandings and biases,.
• I must have (and show) respect for viewpoints that I don’t agree with.
• I still have to stand my ground when a point of principle is at stake.
Results give a lot of myself in the theories, models and claims I publish.
• I expose my cherished results to criticism
(some of which will not be reasonable).
• I justify claims with the best evidence I can get (it is never enough)
• I expose my motives and reflect on how they influence my actions.
• Always expose myself to validation by my own critical faculties.

12. ACTION RESEARCH OFFERS
NEW OPPORTUNITIES
I may struggle on the journey, but at the end I will achieve:
• Improvements to my working practice,
• Some contribution to work in my profession,
• The ability to go on and achieve more.
• Learning many interesting useful things.
• Improving my performance at work.
• Confidence that I’m doing the best job I possibly can.
• Knowing mistakes, misunderstanding & bias are inevitable.
• Ability to respond robustly & constructively to problems
& confrontation.
• Ability to help others improve their performance at work.
• Experience of several important aspects of management.