Continuous Improvement

http://mywebspiration.com/view/389724a28e9d

two kinds of research

http://mywebspiration.com/view/389686ab93f

Philosophic foundations grid

http://mywebspiration.com/view/389666a171db

Johnson on action research

Johnson, A. P. (2002). A short guide to action research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson defined action research by six steps: “1. define question, problem, area of interest; 2. plan data collection; 3. collect and analyze data; 4. create an action plan; 5. share findings and plan of action; 6. review of literature” (p. 14).

Johnson stated that there are three “essential parts of establishing accuracy and credibility in any research project are validity, reliability and triangulation” (p. 72). He defined validity as using “the type of data . . . [which provides] the most accurate understanding possible of your research topic” (p. 72). He defined triangulation as “looking at something from more than one perspective . . . [using] various data sources” (p. 73). Finally, he stated that although reliability is something that is repeatable and gives the same results and you can get that to happen in most “traditional experimental research”, it does not take place in action research (p. 73). Action research is “messy, real-world events in which humans are mucking about . . . each time we search and research we expect to see different things” (p. 73). Because of this, the results of action research are limited in their application. They can only be applied to the actual situation where the research took place and other situations that are very similar.

Greenwood & Levin

Greenwood and Levin gave a historical progression of the concepts of action research. Many sources agree with Greenwood and Levin that action research started with Kurt Lewin (1939) with his seminal idea of doing research in the “field rather than [in] the laboratory” (Reason & Bradbury, 1998, p. 17). Greenwood and Levin stated that Lewin was a “social psychologist” who fled Germany when Nazism started to spread (1998, p. 16). Lewin developed a three step process for social change: “dismantling former structures (unfreezing), changing the structures (changing), and finally locking them back to a permanent structure (freezing) (p. 17). Greenwood and Levin further described that Lewin’s second contribution was his ideas on “group dynamics, identifying factors and forces important for development, conflict and cooperation in groups, [which] led to the concept of T-groups” (p. 17). Lewins’s ideas, according to Greenwood and Levin, was a “short-term intervention” rather than what it is today, which is “continuous and participatory learning process” (p. 18). Nevertheless, Lewin’s ideas on group dynamics have remained to be key to action research.

The next step in the historical development of action research that Greenwood and Levin described is the work done in Norway from “the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Project” which was led by “Einar Thorsrud . . . a psychologist and . . . human resource manager of a Norwegian company” (1998, p. 20). Greenwood and Lewin related the story of how a village in Norway was revitalized through the work of Levin and Nilssen (1988). The process of action research and “task forces” within the Norwegian population (p. 37) led to a refocus of the type of labor done by the village from smelting, which had lost its market, to fishing, tourism, building high end boats, and a knife factor (p. 40). Levin was “active in a number of AR programs in Norway and Sweden . . . [and] is a professor at the Norwegian University for Science and Technology at Trondheim . . . [where he] has been the leader in the creation of combined engineering and AR programs there” (p. 10).

Greenwood and Levin proposed a type of action research that has the goal of “democratic social change” which implement “democratic rules [which] guide decision making” (Greenwood & Levin, 1998, p. 11). Initially they entitled their school of action research as “pragmatic action research” (p. 11) but later in the article they called it “participatory action research (PAR)” (p. 174). For these authors democracy was important because it supports “multiplicity of meanings” and “respects and enhances the diversity of groups” (p. 11). As they stated, “we believe that diversity is one of the most important features of human societies” (p. 12); these differences that often divide groups are viewed by Greenwood and Levin “as a rich social resource that, when effectively mobilized, gives a group or an organization a much greater capacity to transform itself” (p. 12).

Greenwood and Levin divide PAR into two camps—northern and southern. The southern PAR “has clearer moral content . . . [and] its alignment [is] with the poor and oppressed of the world” (Greenwood & Levin, 1998, p. 175). The northern PAR is “co-opted and collaborationist with power holders” and because of that, their research does not affect the type of social change or power change that the southern branch is defined by (Greenwood & Levin, p. 175). They also linked southern PAR with radical feminism because both groups share the same agenda of “fundamental alteration in the distribution of power” (Greenwood & Levin, p. 176). Greenwood and Levin further defined PAR by differentiating it from “standard revolutionary praxis or orthodox labor organizing tactics” because it “relies much more on the knowledge analyses, and efforts of local people” (p. 177).

The final type of action research that Greenwood and Levin discussed is Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (also know as Rapid Rural Appraisal, RRA) which is “strongly associated with . . . a single practitioner: Robert Chambers” (p. 246). Although they are highly critical of this type of action research because it has a “complete lack of baseline data” and it because it works from the outside either as a non-governmental organization (NGO) or non-profit organization, it can often be corrupted. As they stated, “PRA, through an array of techniques, in the hands of incompetent or insincere practitioners can become an empty formalism, a set of ritual steps to go through rather than a set of tools to be deployed differently as the complexities of local situations become better understood” (pp. 248-249). At its worst, PRA is an extractive approach to information in which data are gathered for the purposes of the development agency rather than for meeting the espoused intention of having the agency’s programs built to suit the needs of the community”(p. 249). PRA is further defined by the fact that it is a “short-term” project rather than the traditional time-frame of action research which is a long-term cycle of interventions, evaluations and adjusted interventions (p. 250). Because of being short-term, “PRA is not likely to alter exiting power relations” (p. 250). Even with their strong criticism of PRA, they finished their description by stating that “PRA is a far better option than previous practices for agencies that are the plainly coercive political arms of foreign governments” (p. 251).

McNiff & Whitehead on Action Research

Action Research

McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2002). Action research principles and practice, 2^nd ed. London: Routledge/Falmer.

“The basic action research process can be described as:

• We review our current practice
• Identify an aspect we want to improve
• Imagine a way forward
• Try it out
• Take stock of what happens
• We modify our plan in the light of what we have found and continue with the ‘action’
• Evaluate the modified action
• And so on until we are satisfied with that aspect of our work” (quoting Mc Niff et al, (1996), Mc Niff & Whitehead, 2002, p. 71)

Action research is focused on how to improve the learning that takes place, not necessarily the test scores of the class. As McNiff and Whitehead stated, “as an action research you would not ask questions of the kind, ‘How many people have achieved a specified level of expertise?’; you would ask ‘How do I help Y to learn more effectively?’(McNiff & Whitehead, p. 85). McNiff and Whitehead suggested that “you need to stay focused on one issue, and get on the inside of it and understand it . . . concentrating on only one part of your work helps you to understand the nature and process of your own learning” (p. 85).

McNiff and Whitehead discussed the issue of validity and how the criteria differ in “traditional conventions” from “action research” (p. 106). This is a problem that has “largely to do with power and politics” (p. 106). Traditional science research values the ideas of “replicability and generalisability” but these are not useful in action research (p. 107). As Winter (1989) suggested that the validity of action research could be established by six “new kinds of criteria for assessing action research reports” (p. 107). His ideas included a “reflective critique”, a “dialectical critique”, working with the subjects of the study in a collaborative manner which will enable the researcher to “accommodate a multiplicity of viewpoints” (p. 107).

McNiff and Whitehead clearly stated their disagreement with those within the action research family who want to set strict definitions on what action research consists and what it does not; “I do not believe that action research is a rigidly definable form of practice . . . I have always resisted being corralled into one camp or another” (p. 140). As they summarized, “If we are going to talk about action research and good social orders we need to step into the light of day and show how we are prepared to live out our rhetoric in our practice, otherwise we should be silent about these matter” (p. 140).

John Dewey -- Education Today

John Dewey integrated two ideas into his foundation for educational philosophy. He stated that the educator should consider the inner qualities of the student, the "psychological insight into the child's capacities, interests and habits" (p. 6) and the "sociological" aspect which is "the stimulation of the child's powers by the demands of the social situation in which he finds himself" (p. 3). The focus of the classroom are activities constructed by the teacher with the inner qualities in mind to make education effective.

Dewey seems very contemporary in his understanding of the methods needed. He stated "the active side precedes the passive in the development of the child-nature; that expression comes before conscious impression; that the muscular development precedes the sensory; that movements come before conscious sensations; I believe that consciousness is essentially motor or impulsive; that conscious states tend to project themselves in action" (p. 12).

Dewey further stated that it was a mistake to place a student "into a passive, receptive or absorbing attitude" (p. 13). In this idea he and Freire had the same concept of what is true education. Dewey held that real education takes place within the mind of the student. "What a child gets out of any subject presented to him is simply the images which he forms with regard to it [in his mind]" (p. 13). "If nine-tenths of the energy at present directed towards making the child learn certain things were spent in seeing to it that the child was forming proper images, the work of instruction would be indefinitely facilitated" (p. 13). Dewey was asking educators to construct the teaching environment to assist the student to learn and then to assess quickly and accurately if learning has taken place, and re-teach in another way if needed. This sounds very much like what is being suggested by our administrators and professional learning communities.

reflections on Paulo Freire

Freire defined “the term, conscientização [as] learning to perceive social, political and economic contradictions and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (p. 17). Freire stated that instead of destroying their world, conscientização “enrolls them (the oppressed) in the search for self-affirmation and thus avoid fanaticism” (p. 18).

It is interesting to me that Freire links Christians and Marxists together in the same group as the ones who would be the most open to his ideas. He stated that although “they may disagree with me . . . [they] will continue reading to the end” (p. 19). The explanation that he suggested is that these two groups are both in agreement with human liberation and recognize that man is presently being oppressed. In this definition, Freire describes both of these groups as radical. “The radical, committed to human liberation, does not become the prisoner of a ‘circle of certainty’ within which reality is also imprisoned. On the contrary, the more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better he or she can better transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at their side. The pedagogy of the oppressed . . . is a task for radicals; it cannot be carried out by sectarians” (p. 21). Freire defined sectarianism as “any quarter, [which] is an obstacle to the emancipation of mankind” (p. 19).

I was surprised by Freire’s statement that the oppressors do not have the power or “strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves . . . only [the] power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free [them] both” (p. 26). It is almost Biblical in nature; in our weakness, we are strong. As he explained, “who can better understand the necessity of liberation?” (p. 27). Freire further challenged the oppressed to not turn and become oppressors themselves after freeing themselves, but choose to become “restorers of the humanity of both” (p. 26).

What then is the role of the oppressor in this liberation? Freire stated that “the oppressor is solidary with the oppressed only when he stops regarding the oppressed as an abstract category and sees them as persons who have been unjustly dealt with, deprived of their voice, cheated in the sale of their labor—when he stops making pious, sentimental, and individualistic gestures and risks an act of love . . . to affirm that men and women are persons and as persons should be free” (p. 32).

I can understand the power of what Freire achieved in Brazil because he not only taught peasants to read, his word and his philosophy empowered them to become their own liberators. They were the ones who “recognize or begin to recognize themselves as oppressed [and they] must be among the developers of the pedagogy” (pp. 35-36). The pedagogy “cannot be developed or practiced by the oppressors”; it needs to be far away from any “models from among the oppressors” (p. 36).

Freire quoted Memmi in describing the contradiction of feelings that the oppressed have about the oppressor. The oppressed have a “colonized mentality” where they at the same time hate the oppressor and yet want to be just like him (Memmi, 1967, p. x). The solution that Freire found to counter this emotional contraction was conscientização, which would lead to “transformation” (p. 49).

Another concept that Freire tackled was the philosophy of education. He viewed the whole concept of tabula rasa as another type of oppression; He defined this type of thinking as the “banking concept of education” where teachers are depositing knowledge into empty “receptacles” (p. 53). The problem with this type of educational philosophy is that the teacher is viewed as the only holder of the power of education and the students are seen as completely ignorant; the students “never discover that they educate the teacher” (p. 53). Freire despairingly called these teachers as “bank-clerk teachers who do not realize that they are serving only to dehumanize” (p. 56).

The type of education that Freire suggested was problem-posing education, which differs from the banking type of education because it “breaks the vertical patterns . . . through dialogue” (p. 61). “The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogues with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach” (p. 61).

Freire’s defined action research as cultural action which consisted of “action and reflection: it is praxis; it is transformation of the world” p. 106). “Cultural action is always a systematic and deliberate form of action which operates upon the social structure . . . either serves domination (consciously or unconsciously) or it serves the liberation of men and women” (p. 160).

What was Freire's legacy...he changed lives in Brazil and the thinking of his students at Harvard, but what is his enduring effect? I went on-line and looked for any evidence. I found the website www.freireproject.org which has complete description of what Freire did, but also what others who joined him continue to do. This organization has established educational entities in over 20 countries world wide and 23 of the 50 states here in the U.S. The foundations for critical pedagogy is directly related to this work that has been done by Freire, McLaren, Kincheloe and others.

Argyris in his book, Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organizational presented some foundational ideas for action research. Although this book was difficult at first to read, once I understood the basic concepts and definitions that Argyris proposed, his ideas were clear and practical in actual situations. The first concept that Argyris presented was the idea of single loop learning versus double loop learning. When a problem exists, Argyris suggested that most of the time I will look for the simple cause and try to fix that. Finding the simple cause and fixing it is an example of single loop learning applied to a single loop problem. The main problem with this type of learning is that many of the problems I encounter in a work situation or in an educational setting are not simple single loop problems. Many problems exist because of problems with the underlying philosophies or assumptions that exist within the system that need to be examined and reevaluated (Argyris, 1982).

In reading his explanation of action research I realized that action research is similar to the work that my husband does as a church health consultant. Action research is not the same as “normal science” (Argyris, 1982, p. 491). It does not have a control group because “the action scientist . . . has little or no control over the environment” (Argyris, p. 491). Unlike pure science, action science is working with a client who expects help. Another difference between “normal science” and action science is the idea of failure. When an experiment does not proceed along the lines that the experimenter expected, that experiment should be considered a “failure” (Argyris, p. 492). In action research, the actual goal of the researcher is helping the client re-examine the situation and make the necessary changes. This is more like a journey or a process and not just one experimental procedure. The action researcher and the client may have to re-examine the situation and change the response again and again until the desired result is obtained. “The action scientist is producing an experimental treatment . . . to help people become aware of their theory-in-use and the learning systems that they create . . . long complex processes . . . which are placed into action as a response to the client’s reactions” (Argyris, p. 491). Many teachers employ the process of action research when they evaluate the effectiveness of a specific method or unit of study. The goal of action science, unlike pure science, is to train the client in action methods so that the client will become an “effective interventionist” (Argyris, p. 491). In taking these actions, educators improve the effectiveness of learning process in their classrooms.

I've been review Reason and Bradbury for the philosophical foundations of Action Research. Traditional scientific research is based on rationalism (knowledge based on what we think or reason -- which uses logical argument to establish a line of thinking). This was used by Plato and Descartes. The next step in traditional scientific research was empiricism (knowledge is based on what we our senses tell us, what we experience outside of our thoughts). This was used by Aristotle and Newton and resulted in the scientific method of research. Post-modern philosophy called into question the "given" of rationalism and the objectivity of researchers in empiricism. As Gregory Bateson (1972) "argued that he . . . was deeply concerned with . . . the epistemological errors of our time and their consequences for justice and ecological sustainability. So the challenge of changing our worldview is central to our times" (as quoted in Reason & Bradbury, p. 4).

In the rejection of traditional science philosophers such as Michel Foucault proposed that knowledge was based on what society constructed because of the operation of power. As he stated, "There are, in the end, no foundations on which truth can be securely laid" (as quoted in Reason & Bradbury, p. 6). Brian Trainor, in his article on Post-modernism, truth and social work, criticised Foucault's theoretical philosophy, but "embrace the practical and methodical Foucault who recommends a full professional immersion into the real personal and social problems of everyday life" (Trainer, 2002, p. 212). Trainor thought is that action research needs to strive for the truth and best action in order to be effective.

Another school of philosophy that contributed to action research arose from liberation theology and liberation pedagogy. One of the best examples of this school of thought was Paulo Freire who proposed that education is power and education of the poor give them power. In his article, Education: Praxis de Liberte (1968) Freire outlined his thoughts on how education extends liberty to the students. In this action we can move them away from oppression and towards democracy. He paid a dear price for these ideas and had to escape to Harvard to survive.