Here are five contributions to our conversations. In particular I'm hoping that you will respond to Susan's note in point iii) where Susan is encouraging us to make contributions in the ALARA website.
i) On 29 Jun 2010, at 21:19, Alan Markowitz wrote:
> Hi from the States.
> We have a bit of a different view of how action research may be used. At our university, this model has been accepted as the capstone experience for all of our graduate programs in education. I have shared our methodology with Jack in Zagreb.
> Alan
I'm inspired by Alan's success in contributing to a systemic influence of action research at The College of Saint Elizabeth in New Jersey, USA and his use of Checkland's soft systems methodology in the integration of action research into all the graduate programs in education.
I'm hoping that Alan will share an account/explanation of his contribution to this systemic influence of AR at the College.
In relation to Alan's use of Soft Systems Methodology Kenichi Uchiyama, a former president of the Japan Association of Action Research, has written about his modification of Checkland's ideas in a Japanese context in his March 2009 paper on action research:
'A Concise Theoretical Grounding of Action Research: Based on Checkland's Soft Systems Methodology, And Kimura's Phenomenological Psychiatry.'
You can access Kenichi's paper at:
http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/japan/kenichiuchiyamaar.pdf
Please note that Kenichi has asked that the paper isn't circulated without his permission.
ii) On 23 Jun 2010, at 09:02, Cain T. wrote:
> Dear all,
> Following the AR conference Zagreb I was moved to re-work a paper that I had already submitted to a journal, about teachers' classroom-based action research. Here is the abstract:
>
> I argue that teachers’ classroom-based action research is frequently misunderstood by those who undertake it and support it, in three respects. First, it is wrongly assumed to fall into either positivist or interpretative paradigms (or perhaps a mixture of both) or to be critical. Second, there is little understanding as to why action research is necessarily self-reflexive, collaborative and political. Third, there is a view that classroom research studies are not suitable for dissemination because they are not generalisable. Drawing on Heron and Reason (1997) I outline a view of how teachers are positioned in their classroom to explain why teachers’ classroom-based action research cannot be underpinned by positivist, interpretative or critical paradigms, is necessarily self-reflexive, collaborative and political (albeit in a weak form) and is suitable for dissemination to teachers, working in similar contexts.
>
> If anyone is interested in reading and responding to the article I will happily send it to you. I would particularly appreciate critical comments because I will resubmit it soon and I'm sure it could be strengthened by critical appraisal. My email address is [log in to unmask]
I think Tim's argument that teachers' classroom-based action research cannot be underpinned by positivist, interpretive or critical paradigms is persuasive and should be widely disseminated. The one suggestion I'd make is that the paper might benefit from a section at the end pointing towards the accumulated evidence base from the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices Special Interest Group of AERA (it was founded in 1993) that supports the point that teacher's classroom-based action research is necessarily self-reflexive, collaborative and political and is suitable for dissemination to teachers working in similar contexts. It might be that a couple of references to the teacher-researcher accounts at http://www.actionresearch.net/living/living.shtml could serve to reinforce this point. I'm thinking particularly of:
Erica Holley's (1997) How do I as a teacher-researcher contribute to the development of a living educational theory through an exploration of my values in my professional practice? . M.Phil., University of Bath. Retrieved 30 June 2010 from http://www.actionresearch.net/living/erica.shtml ;
Karen Riding's (2008) How do I come to understand my shared living educational standards of judgement in the life I lead with others? Creating the space for intergenerational student-led research PhD., University of Bath. Retrieved 30 June 2010 from http://www.actionresearch.net/living/karenridingphd.shtml .
iii) Enhancing the influence of our action research through the interconnecting and branching channels of communication in the ALARA website.
Susan is encouraging us, in the note below to contribute to the communications on the ALARA website. Here is the url http://www.alara.net.au/public/home to get you into the Networking Streams with the invitation:
"The Congress Streams include: Social Ecology, International Community Development, Health and Wellbeing, Systems, Education and Learning, Decolonising Practice with Indigenous Peoples, Feminist AR. Discussion has started in all these streams - join the website, listen in to the conversation, and jump in with your contribution."
It would be good to know if you encounter any difficulty in accessing or making your contribution to any of the Virtual Networking Streams. It would be really good if you'd respond to my introductory message in the Education and Learning Stream.
Here is Susan's note:
On 29 Jun 2010, at 08:32, Susan Goff wrote:
Here are some practical steps:
1. As all Stream Chairs and Keynotes (with the exception of Fem AR) are now registered onto the website. It is worth taking a moment to explore the website and other people’s Congress Streams – to learn about the incredible potential of our website and meet each other. You will find that in each case, the Stream conversations are in the early stages of development. We have been testing technology and the idea of engaging virtually, to make everything ready for you to more actively facilitate community building for the Congress. We believe all systems are go.
2. Once you have found yourself in your stream or someone else’s, and if you have not already done so, we suggest that you raise one or two questions about action research and action learning (both are important, and whether you see a distinction between the two or not can be a part of your discussion if you so wish) in relationship to your Stream, or your Keynote focus in one or more relevant streams.
3. Consider who you would like to join you in the conversation – a colleague, student, client, friend – and invite them in. “<Join the website>”, on the left hand side of the ALARA home page (http://www.alara.net.au/public/home <http://www.alara.net.au/public/home> ) allows a person (any person) to join the site. ALARA will encourage all Congress registrants and members of our organisations to come into the Stream discussions, to meet you and contribute to the conversations. Please consider opportunities for informing your existing networks, workshops and other channels of the discussions.
4. Become familiar with the facilities in the discussion groups. A two page discussion ("Inside an ALARA Discussion Group") is attached, and experience is a wonderful teacher.
5. An ALARA member will scan the development of the conversation fortnightly, up to the time of the Congress, and post an evaluative summary in the Stream discussion group, where you and others in the Stream can comment if necessary. The World Congress Organising Group will use these summaries to inform their programming decisions, so that our focus in the Congress is a direct reflection of current discourse.
5. Consider what the dialogue in Streams has to say to your own contributions to the Congress.
Please take these as invitations, and get back to me with your thoughts as to how we can improve our virtual conversations. The Congress will provide a means of connecting people and ideas, resourcing the growth of the field following the event itself, and on into other events throughout the world. What we are looking at here in this email, is the initiation of this development process.
If you need assistance in tackling the technology, or finding people to bring into your stream, please let me know without hesitation.
Kind regards
Susan"
iv) On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Alan Rayner (BU) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Geisha,
>
> I don't regard myself as an authority on or exemplar of Action Research and Teaching praxis. I am only trying to offer what I feel may be an apt logical foundation for such research and praxis, consistent with its values (abstract [oppositional] logic is inconsistent with the values of action research and praxis, hence giving rise to 'living contradiction'). Without that foundation, AR will struggle for acceptance in a world that doesn't question the premises of abstract logic.
I've been convinced of the validity of Alan's ideas about inclusionality since being introduced to them some 7 years ago and have integrated them into my supervisions of masters and doctoral action research enquiries. I think Marian (Naidoo) and Eden Charles amongst others live and work from an inclusional perspective as can be seen in their thesis at http://www.actionresearch.net/living/living.shtml . The only feeling of unease I have with the idea of a 'foundation', whether this is seen as a logical foundation or a foundation discipline, is that in my action research I tend to give primacy to exploring the implications of asking, researching and answering a question of the kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?' and to clarify the meanings of values, logic, skills and knowledge in the course of their emergence and evolution through practice.
v) Qualitative Research Resource of the Week.
I was delighted to hear that http://www.actionresearch.net has been distinguished as the Qualitative Research Resource of the Week at:
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/WQR/wqr3_26.htm
with the affirmation:
"ActionResearch.net: Jack Whitehead's web site features a wealth of information on master's and doctoral students' action research writings as well as full-text examples of Jack's own work including his "Living Educational Theory Approach" to action research."
Love Jack.
