00-Whitehead-3357-Prelims.qxd 2/6/2006 12:33 PM Page i Action Research Living Theory 00-Whitehead-3357-Prelims.qxd 2/6/2006 12:33 PM Page ii 00-Whitehead-3357-Prelims.qxd 2/6/2006 12:33 PM Page iii Action Research Living Theory Jack Whitehead and Jean McNiff SAGE Publications London ● Thousand Oaks ● New Delhi 00-Whitehead-3357-Prelims.qxd 2/6/2006 12:33 PM Page iv © Jack Whitehead and Jean McNiff 2006 First published 2006 Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers. SAGE Publications Ltd 1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP SAGE Publications Inc. 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd B-42, Panchsheel Enclave Post Box 4109 New Delhi 110 017 British Library Cataloguing in Publication data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN10 1 4129 0854 X ISBN13 978 1 4129 0854 2 ISBN10 1 4129 0855 8 (pbk) ISBN13 978 1 4129 0855 9 (pbk) Library of Congress Control Number 2005932717 Typeset by C&M Digitals (P) Ltd., Chennai, India Printed on paper from sustainable resources Printed in Great Britain by TJ International, Padstow, Cronwall 00-Whitehead-3357-Prelims.qxd 2/6/2006 12:33 PM Page v Contents Introduction 1 Working with the Text 4 PART 1 BACKGROUNDS AND CONTEXTS 9 1 Background to our research: reasons and purposes 11 What are our concerns? 2 Contexts of our research 28 Why are we concerned? 3 Looking for data 47 What experiences can we describe to show why we are concerned? PART 2 GATHERING DATA AND GENERATING EVIDENCE 61 4 Monitoring practice and gathering data 63 What kind of data will we gather to show the situation as it unfolds? 5 Interpreting the data and generating evidence in relation to living critical standards of judgement 80 How do we explain our educational influences in learning? PART 3 ESTABLISHING VALIDITY AND LEGITIMACY 95 6 Validity, legitimacy and moral authority 97 How do we show that any conclusions we come to are reasonably fair and accurate? 00-Whitehead-3357-Prelims.qxd 2/6/2006 12:33 PM Page vi vi contents 7 The potential significance of our research 112 How do we show the potential significance of our research? PART 4 IMPLICATIONS, EVALUATIONS AND DISSEMINATION 125 8 Case studies 127 How do we show the implications of our research? 9 Evaluating the account of our research 140 How do we evaluate the evidence-based account of our learning? PART 5 TESTING OUR CLAIMS TO EDUCATIONAL KNOWLEDGE 153 10 Into new research 155 How do we modify our concerns, ideas and practices in the light of our evaluations? References 168 Index 177 01-Whitehead-3357-Introduction.qxd 2/6/2006 12:33 PM Page 1 Introduction This book is about the practice and theory of action research. It is written for practitioner action researchers who are committed to improving their learning, and offering expla- nations for how and why they are doing so. Specifically it is written for those on formal accredited courses and their lecturers, and also for those at a more advanced stage of their workplace enquiries, who wish to engage with ideas about the practicali- ties of doing action research, and about its theoretical underpinnings. The book is a guide to the most pressing topics in the field, including the little addressed yet probably most urgent issue of how it is possible to assess quality in action research, so that it can generate theory whose validity can be tested against publicly communicable standards of judgement. This is especially urgent in light of many gov- ernments’ policies regarding the future directions of educational research, how it should be funded, and the potential implications for education. Currently, funding for educa- tional research tends to go to those institutions that have demonstrated quality research output. In the UK, funding goes to those with the highest grades in the national research assessment exercise. These institutions tend to be those whose research is clearly within the social sciences. The possible continuation of the social sciences as the dominant par- adigm in educational research carries deep implications for the likely continued posi- tioning of practitioners as participants in higher-education-led research, rather than researchers and theorists who are conducting their own practice-based research in their own right. This situation is of concern, especially in light of the current increased openness to practitioner research, as demonstrated in recent funded initiatives such as the Best Practice Research Scholarships in the UK. Yet while practitioner research is generally held in high regard for its contributions to quality practice, it is not yet held in equal regard for its potential contributions to quality theory. Part of the reason is that its methods for assessing quality have not yet been fully worked out, and in some cases not even addressed. The new openness to practitioner research is therefore offset by a cau- tion that perhaps practitioners are still not capable of doing quality research or gener- ating theory because they are not fully conversant with the appropriate methods for judging the quality of their own work, and, given that the topic is seldom raised in the practitioner research literature, it would seem of low priority. So if practitioners them- selves do not take care in addressing these core issues, the wider educational research community could be forgiven also for not taking them seriously. The matter is now urgent, and especially so in light of this recently published statement by the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (2005): 01-Whitehead-3357-Introduction.qxd 2/6/2006 12:33 PM Page 2 2 Action Research:Living Theory Where researchers in higher education have undertaken applied and practice-based research that they consider to have achieved due standards of excellence, they should be able to submit it to the RAE in the expectation that it will be assessed fairly, against appropriate criteria. The published RAE criteria state that best quality research should demonstrate quality ‘that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour’. This presents a key opportunity for practitioner researchers. The practitioner research community needs now to do serious work on identifying its own criteria and standards of judgement to show both that they know what quality means in action research and also that they are capable of articulating those standards and producing theories that stand the test of the stan- dards in achieving originality, significance and rigour. Practitioners themselves need to define and articulate the standards of judgement they use to evaluate their own work, and make these standards of judgement available to the wider educational research community for the assessment of practitioners’ accounts, so that shared agreement can be reached about how accounts should be judged on their own terms within the still dom- inant paradigm of the social sciences. This book engages with these issues. We explain, through offering an account of our own action research, how we address the issues both of how we do action research, and of how we assess the quality of our own research and original theories so that we can test their validity and legitimacy against the critical scrutiny of the wider research com- munity who read this book. We hope by doing this that we encourage public debates about what is at stake in doing action research and how its quality can be judged. We depart from conventional social science criteria and standards of judgement, and we identify new forms that, we believe, are more appropriate for judging the quality of practitioner action research, namely, the idea that we can transform the values that inspire our work and give meaning to our lives into specifically critical living episte- mological standards of judgement by which we judge the quality of our living theories of practice. We explain these ideas throughout, in our usual accessible language, with copious examples of how this is already being achieved in contemporary work. This was always meant to be a pedagogical text, in which we set out the practices and principles of action research, addressing mainly practitioners on higher degree courses or at a more advanced level in their workplace studies. Yet we have always maintained that the best way of teaching something is to show how you do it yourself. Practical examples seem to work best, and, given that action research is eminently practical, it makes sense for us to explain action research processes through the way we conduct our own action enquiries. Besides, the whole idea of action research is that the kind of theory that is most appropriate for explaining its processes is already within the practice, and emerges from the practice as the research develops. This is what we have tried to do. We have set out our own action research account, and, at the same time, commented on the process of what we are doing as we conduct our research and generate our own living educational theories. These theories are living in the sense that they are our theories of practice, generated from within our living practices, our present best thinking that incorporates yesterday into today, and which holds tomorrow already within itself. Because this is a pedagogical text, we mix and match different voices. The main text is spoken in our shared voice as researchers, and throughout we engage you, as our 01-Whitehead-3357-Introduction.qxd 2/6/2006 12:33 PM Page 3 Introduction 3 reader. In some instances, specifically in Part 2, which deals with some of the more practical issues of data gathering and generating evidence, we change to a more pedagogical voice, where we specifically offer ideas about how you can do these things for yourself. We do not tell you what to do, but offer ideas that you may wish to try out for your- self. We explain how and why they work for us, and for many others. Throughout we adopt a critical voice, where we comment on what we are doing and invite you also crit- ically to engage with us as we tell our research story and make judgements on our own processes of communication. It is for you to decide if we manage to realize our identi- fied standards of judgement, mainly by producing a text that is authentic and helpful. In many ways, this is an experimental text for us, yet, in our view, this is what we are about as action researchers, finding innovative ways of conducting our lives and telling our stories in a way that other people can learn. We are always glad of feedback that helps us to modify, refine and strengthen our work. We therefore depend on you, our critical audience, to provide that feedback. Please let us know what you think. You can contact us at our e-mail addresses below. If you write, we will respond. Jack Whitehead can be contacted at