In the case of my masters dissertation (and in my everyday practice I hope):
1. How do you assess the quality of your practitioner
research?
I assessed the quality by considering the question "has the research
provided me with 'answers' about improving my practice?" As the work
developed with thought into practice I reflect(ed) about whether the answers
were sufficiently appropriate and whether I had missed significant factors /
ideas.
2. How can we enhance the validity and rigour of our
practitioner research?
I tried (try) to enhance validity and rigour by exposing my work to critical
review with those involved as co-researchers. In this I tried (try) to
explaining to the best of my ability the situation, my belief systems, the
rationale, the methodolgy and ny thought processes. The more people that
consider / considered the work, the values and views expressed within it and
by the expression of their thoughts, views, values and constructs on the
work and the reality they construct of the situation, the more likely that
the work was/is valid to those involved. In accounting the work I tried /
try to give full account of congruent and contrary understadings of the
research. This is a feature of my scientific background and physics
resaerch training - be upfront about unexpected / awkward data, I have an
obligation to tell it as I found it, such results might be someone elses
critical data at a later stage. (I came to understand how important this is
in practice many years later. In my youth - during a 6 month period I
followed the footsteps of a 'respected' authority on a parallel research
path. I found that with the same apparatus I could not achieve the levels of
accuracy and certainty that this authority claimed. With the naivety of
youth I concluded that I was simply not able to perform my scientific
practice with the accuaracy, skill and repeatibility that this authority
could. Consequently I discarded the work. Many years later, to my surprise
and not surprise, I found that the work had been largely discredited. My
not surprise was because of a basic principle of physics - if you and I
carry out the same experiment using the same resources we should get the
same result. My surprise was because an eminent physicist had distorted the
truth. This was a critical life incident for me. I was surprised (naively?)
that a scientist who should be searching for truth and universality
(scientific) would do this, it went against my moral values and the
unwritten ethics that were strongly codified during my undergraduate years.
It made me more determined than ever to 'tell it as I see it, do not
defelect when what you see and record is uncomfortable for myslef or others'.
A further method I use originates from my background as an educator:
physicist transiting to information systems engineer -> transiting to the
human condition? (i.e. positivistic no humansitic element -> positivisitic
with human interactions). It is simply to regard research methods and
paradigms as a toolbox, use whichever are appropriate, do not be afraid to
use mixed methods when faced with complexity. (I am aware that mixed methods
is widely referred to in various literature, equally well I am aware that it
is considered somewhat debatable by others - I do claim that I came to it
myself and was pleased to have it 'validated' by other's claims and accounts
in the literature, particularly in ICT research.)
Beyond the internal organisational validity and rigour achieved by the
methiods above, I would make no further claim to validity and rigour. Any
further claim is for the external observer to decide. My work is contingent
and not concerned with axiomatic universal truth (Phsyics?), it is concerned
with 'my' practice and those connected with me. If others can see validity
and potential benefit or 'errors to avoid' from the expression of my work
then that is good, I am contributing to society.
I am sure that these points have been made time & time again, so forgive me
if I express the obvious.
regards
Francis
|