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).