Wolfgang Fichten

Some Remarks on Action Research Issues

Paper presented at the Conference on Action Research in Teacher Education and School Development at the NelsonMandelaMetropolitanUniversity (NMMU), Port Elizabeth, August 23rd, 2007.

I was requested to give some introductory remarks on action research, practitioner research or practice-based inquiry as a starting point for our workshop. I will do this by giving a rough overview of the tradition lines of practitioner research first, then I will give an outline of some types of research realised in this realm, and in the third section I will speak about some ideas underlying the team research approach we apply at the University of Oldenburg.

I.

I invite you to journey to the land of practitioner or action research. If we fly across the action research territory we would soon recognise that it is not a homogeneous landscape (cf. Zeichner 2001). Instead we see a very differentiated picture – or to use another metaphor – we see a lot of different regions, small territories and claims. It looks like a patchwork blanket. There is for instance a broad delta of a river called“teacher as researcher movement”, occupied by Elliott and Stenhouse. We can see the emancipatory action research canyon of Kemmis, Carr and McTaggart, whose approach is grounded in the critical social theory of Habermas and others. Another region is named participatory action research based on the idea of liberation pedagogy – we can see the logo of Fals-Borda on the ground. Another region is named reflective practitioner movement, represented by Donald Schön. Additionally we read names like self study research, collaborative research and so on.

If we walk across the market place of a central city in this state we would recognize that all the members of the different territories and tribes greet one another with respect, while on the other hand still articulating their origin and the convictions and ideologies attached to it.

Despite all these differences in detail, all inhabitants of the land of action research/practitioner research share some basic assumptions and convictions:

  1. Practitioners should be involved in inquiry and even do research on their own.
  2. The inquired questions or the research topics stem from and are grounded in practical problems and workplace situations. Research is not seen as academic basic research.Instead, action research is research from the practice, for the practice, and everyday workplace situations.
  3. Research is done or performed with the intention that it has an impact on the practice, changing actions in the field and enhancing the understanding of the situations and its contexts – in the best case, leading to improvement of actions and practices. As Jim Weiler (2001), a lecturer at the BelvedereTechnicalTeachers College in Zimbabwe, points out: “We view research not as a means to a product (answers), but as a process of deeper understandings, increased dialogue and more meaningful actions” (p. 414).

If we overlook the different theoretical orientations and assumptions made by the single tribe-members of the action research realm we can state: There are approaches with a more or less personal and individualistic orientation aiming at personal growth and empowerment, professionalism, self reflectivity and so on. On the other hand, there are approaches characterized by an emancipatory claim aiming at social transformation; the change of power structures; and the empowerment of socially disadvantaged, oppressed or marginalized people.

To underline this notion I refer to the article of Kenneth Zeichner and Susan Noffke (2001) on practitioner research published in the Handbook of Research on Teaching, in which they give an overview of the different action research tradition lines. They write: “(…) much of practitioner research involves the careful study of the participants in educational practice, very often involving the students or children what and how they learn. The research is personal, because it represents not only the search for general principles or theories of school curriculum or classroom instruction but also the search for understanding and improving one’s everyday practice. (…).Perhaps because of the frequent focus on individual teachers in their classrooms, some practitioner research is dominated by psychological, rather than sociological or anthropological frameworks” (pp. 307/308).

The opposite side of the action research continuum is characterized by the authors as follows: “In the framework where all forms of knowledge production are seen as representing particular interests, some teachers, administrators and researchers have developed projects that embody a transformative and emancipatory theory and practice. (…) In the participatory research tradition an overt agenda of social change is integral to the research process. This agenda is explicit in its commitment to economic and social justice issues in both the larger social context and research process itself. If the political is conceptualized in terms of power issues, then the major political focus in this tradition involves shared power over knowledge issues.” (pp. 309/310)

Let’s return to the marketplace of the central city of the action research territory and let’s have a look at the products the members of the different tribes offer there. Looking through the glasses of a traditionally socialised social scientist, some appear rather strange and unconventional. Sure, there are publications, papers, research reports etc. which meet the demands of“serious” or conventional empirical study. The presentation of findings and research results correspond to traditional quality criteria of empirical social research, and they fulfil the claim of methological rigour. On the other hand, one could find research which looks more like self-therapy and a sort of narration or storytelling. Zeichner and Noffke mention that some practitioner research appears as plays, oral inquiries or even poems. In front of this heterogeneous picture, the often heard question is raised: What counts as research in action or practitioner research? Zeichner and Noffke develop and introduce a set of quality criteria for practitioner research which should be obeyed and discussed.

Summarizing the first part of my presentation, I would like to emphasise two points:

  1. An action researcher has to reflect the action research continuum and has to decide whether an intended research project has a focus on personal growth, individual development, etc., or whether it is directed more towards social transformation, empowerment of disadvantaged people, change of power structures, etc. This must not inevitably be a contrast or an antinomia; there are some links or mixed mode approaches possible. But all in all this fundamental question should be addressed and reflected.
  2. There raises the question: what is meant by the term “research” in the realm of practitioner research? What standards and quality criteria are necessary?

II.

My thesis for this second part is: Although this may be useful and enlightening in some respect, in this workshop we should not focus too much on the different theoretical assumptions and underpinnings of the diverse practitioner research traditions. Instead I suggest that we should concentrate on and analyse the different social architectures and social practices of practitioner research. Thus practitioner research or action research comes into view as a genuine social practice in itself. In doing so we can generate and construct different types of action research or practice-oriented inquiry (cf. the conference paper submitted by Wolfgang Nitsch). Based on my experiences with action research and team research (see below) I distinguish the following research types. I should mention that now I am mainly referring to teacher research or action research performed by teachers.

Focus / Aim/ outcome
„I“ / self-reflection; self-development; personal growth; improvement of own tuition etc.
„some/ we“ / reflection and improvement of a shared practice/ a limited/ special sector of teaching; cooperative development of the quality of lessons; empowerment of cooperative work and structures in schools etc.
„all“(more than some) / school improvement; organisation development; quality management for the whole school; transformation of institutional structures in the direction of more democracy and participation; changes in the school and learning culture as a whole etc.

Figure 1

The first type I call “I-research”. The main feature of this type is seen in that the research problem emanates and is derived from a special situation which is seen by the teacher to a high degree as personal, specific, etc. The device is: This is my own problem, it occurs in my teaching or instructional situations, touches only me and my interaction with a special class or group of learners. As a consequence, the findings and results of the investigation are only usedin a personal or private manner, for instance for personal growth and the improvement of the own teaching. Please note, it is not decisive whether the teacher does the research on the chosen problem alone and in splendid isolation. He/she can do the inquiry also in collaboration with other persons, for instance student teachers. We find some examples of “I-research” even in the team research approach in Oldenburg. The decisive feature is that the research problem is conceptualised as a personal one and that the research results are used for personal purposes; they are not communicated to and shared with colleagues or other professionals.

I have to make a critical remark concerning this type of research: “I-research” is – in my opinion – an unrealistic research type or – with a term borrowed from Max Weber – it is an “ideal fiction”, thinkable but not grounded in reality. Situations which contain only exclusively personal or private features or aspects are very rare.Even situations which are perceived by persons as individual and unique contain – on a deeper level – some general features. But in many cases teachers are unaware of the general features and fundamental or basic aspects of problems occurring in everyday practice.

One could recognize this from an example of team research. The research done by a team consisting of a teacher and university students on the topic or problem of learners who don’t participate in lessons – in other words: who are silent – appears as typical “I-research”. The problem was conceptualised as a personal one and the findings served only for the teacher’s decisions and as a means for helping her to deal with silent learners (see Appendix No. 1). But if we analyze this research it becomes clear that other teachers might have and will indeed have the same problem too; many teachers are confronted with the problem of judging the oral performance of learners who don’t actively participate in lessons.

There’s also another point: When a researching teacher changes his/her own teaching as a result of the research results, this can in some circumstances have only limited effects. The reality of teaching is that a class or group of learners is taught by several teachers. Thus, the students are exposed to several different influences and practices that do not necessarily have to go in the same direction; opposing tendencies are also possible. For example, the class teacher can place value on the establishment of a constructive class environment/social climate, and work towards this. But this goal will only be achieved to a certain extent (or not at all) if it is not supported by the other teachers; if they focus on other orientations; or if they happen to have opposing goals. This means that you can’t view the everyday workings of education as an isolated thing which you view only from an I-perspective. Education is always socially constructed and exists within a social framework. To achieve sustainable effects, a researching teacher needs to inform his/her colleagues about his/her research findings, and develop ways to implement them together with the others.

I call the second type“some” or “we-research”. Here, the starting point of research activities is a problem shared by a group of practitioners. It is a relevant problem for a group of teachers – not for all colleagues. All group members are participating in the formulation of the research question, the inquiry is done with the aim to improve a shared realm of practice and to develop the quality of lessons cooperatively. It is not necessary that all teachers of the group are actively engaged in the research project, it could be one or two persons. The main thing is that the research is grounded in a shared problem.It starts with a question all group members are interested in and the research findings are – at least – communicated and discussed in the group. All members of the teacher group decide about the practical consequences derived from research findings and they translate these cooperatively into deeds. We notice that such research is more socially oriented, it has some systemic effects or effects on a medium scale.

I can mention an example of “we-research” from the Oldenburg team researchapproach. Highschool chemistry teachers were irritated by the fact that only very few students were choosing chemistry as a subject in higher grades (senior high school). The research was addressed to get to know the causes for this behaviour. As a consequence of the inquiry, the teachers changed – along with other measures – the chemistry curriculum in the lower grades (junior high school) (see Appendix No. 2). This research reaches and touches not only the teaching of a single teacher. On the other hand, however, it only has an impact on the practice of the chemistry teachers.English or fine arts teachers were not interested in the research results, they could not profit from them.

I call the third type “all-research”. The research is generated and results from a problem or demand which is relevant for a collective (for instance all staff members) or the whole school. The research then aims at school improvement, organisation development, changes in the school and learning culture, etc. Although this type of research has a strong social and collective component it is not necessary that the whole staff is actively engaged in research activities. The main point is that all staff members agree with the research, are continually informed about the progress of the research, are willing to grapple with the research findings, derive and decide about practical consequences, and carry them out collectively. Thus, the research has a meaning for the whole organisation, it has an impact on the whole school and clear systemic effects.

There are a lot of examples for “all-research” from the context of the Oldenburg team research (see Appendix No. 3). I want to mention and underline that this type of research unfolds its full power and potential at best if a series of inquiries are performed over a longer time period. That means: research projects are conducted continually in the same school.

What can we derive from the sketch of different research types?

  1. If teachers are actively engaged in research and conduct inquiries on their own, the question becomes: Where, when and how could they acquire research competence? How and where are they introduced to research skills and informed about research methods? Where, how and from whom could they learn how to conduct research? These questions are highly relevant in the German context because university teacher education in German-speaking countries contains few opportunities for the acquisition of research-methodical competencies during the course of study.
  2. In some sense my typology is somewhat idealistic. It supposes that teachers conduct inquiries on their own initiative entirely without external advice or support.As international experiences with teachers as researchers show, this is an unrealistic picture. What we can learn from the literature is that in most cases, researching teachers are guided, facilitated and counselled by faculty members or lecturers. A sort of collaboration and cooperation between researching teachers and external experts or scientists is necessary, useful und beneficial.
  3. It becomes clear that in every single case, the question has to be reflected and answered: Whose interests are concerned? Who profits from the research? What is the inquiry aiming at? Who are involved in the research problem? Which areas of an institution are involved, in other words, which levels of the organisational hierarchy are touched by an inquiry? (cf. the conference paper submitted by Wolfgang Nitsch).

III.

I will start the third part with an example of a teacher research project, cited in the book by Herbert Altrichter and Peter Posch: “Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht” – a publication which was one of the starting points for the development of the team research approach (available in English: Altrichter/Posch/Somekh: Teachers investigate their work, 1993; a new edition is forthcoming). In my opinion, this is one of the best introductions to teacher research, containing practically oriented information concerning research skills and methods.

Figure 2

The case study of Ines Morocutti described in this publication is as follows: Morocutti is teaching English in a high school. Her aim was to conduct student oriented, learner centred and highly communicative English lessons. She was not satisfied with the degree with which the students participated in lessons and communicated in English with one another. The starting point of her classroom research was a discrepancy or tension between her pedagogical aims and the perceived student behaviour. Her question was: How can I change it? As inquiry methods she used a research diary and tape recordings of lessons. On the basis of the data she recognized that the boys showed significantly more verbal activity than the girls – a fact she was not aware of before. With this insight in mind, she was able to alter her teaching styleby paying more attention to the girls’ verbal activities.

Obviously, this inquiry is a typical “I-research”. But suppose we could arrange some other persons around Morocutti. Now, we can ask: What changes? What is the difference? The phases and procedures of the research process, the knowledge production, the possibilities for reflection, and so on all must be considered. And: What role or function should these persons have? Counselers, supervisors, critical friends, co-researchers?

If we suppose the persons are teachers from another highschool or they are all English teachers – what consequences and effects would this arrangement have?