 |
 |
'amen' to that, dear Bob... I usually use the word 'circumscription' to replace 'definition' as it resonates well with the 'perambulation' idea of walking alongside others and 'narrating' the experience of the 'landscape'... indeed, it IS important to change our metaphors and other language when we do this kind of work even if it means that other have to agree to give that other language a chance... Love to all Jacques -----Original Message----- From: Practitioner-Researcher [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Dick Sent: Saturday, 8 May 2010 7:18 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Education and Learning Virtual Networking Stream for ALARA's 8th World Congress Speaking only for myself, here are a few comments on the issue of "what is action research?". For the most part I avoid debates about definitions. I do this because for the most part I don't think they are important. To my mind, meaning is more usefully negotiated than defined. It IS important though, I believe, to recognise when we use different words to describe the same "reality". And it's important to be aware that we use the same word with different meanings. (In case you're wondering, yes, I do think there is reality. I stick it in quotes only because I suspect some of you doubt its existence. In an action research study, "reality" is whatever I'm trying to help people to improve.) To my mind that doesn't mean that one definition or the other is correct. It means we have some listening and some negotiation to do before we can communicate meaningfully. Then there's the issue about what counts as action research. Personally, I don't expect the boundary around a meaning to be precise. Language requires us to chop the world up into pieces that can be labelled. Life would presumably be easier if it didn't; but that's how it is, I think. I find it useful to be mindful of this, and to assume that in "reality" the boundaries are fuzzy. The boundaries exist, I think. It's just that they aren't clear or precise. For me, there are some varieties of AR that are probably similar enough and common enough to be regarded as mainstream. Other varieties are nearer to the boundary. There may be some AR-like processes sitting outside the boundary. I suspect I've learned more from some of the varieties near the boundary than from the mainstream. I'm thinking, for instance, of some of the soft systems approaches, or appreciative inquiry. Or (to move beyond the boundary perhaps) participative evaluation. On occasion I've had reason to be pleased that I have had some training and experience as a laboratory experimentalist. It gives me an additional and different perspective on research and change. In addition, it seems to me that every AR or AL study I'm involved in is unique. So for me there is some irony in the proliferation of labels for the different varieties. Personally, I don't know what an action research study is going to be like until it's over. It keeps morphing. If I labelled every variation I'd multiply the labels already available. That doesn't seem useful. Very occasionally I even wonder if the term "action research" is useful. :-) On the other hand I do think your planned exercise is useful, Margaret, provided it isn't intended to be definitive. Cheers -- Bob -- +- Bob Dick ------------------------------------------------------+ | bd at uqconnect.net http://www.uqconnect.net/action_research/ | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5097 (20100509) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com