Dear Jack and Alon,
Thanks for this helpful reference list.
I know some teacher and nurse researchers I have met
appreciate being directed to strategic ideas and
resources because it saves so much time, in busy lives
juggling all their pressing calls on energy.
In terms of the Review stage, the references provide a
back-drop for e-readers' understanding of where
writers are coming from, and give possible tools for
making responses to the chosen case study.
Regards to all
Brian
--- Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Brian asks:
> I find it helpful to dip into the learning and
> conversations of writers who have been considering
> questions of quality, validity, and rigour. Does
> your department have a suggested reading list
> available addressing these issues?
>
> Hi Brian - Tutors prepare their own reading lists
> for their practitioner-researcher programmes.
> The references I usually encourage researchers to
> engage with on issues of quality, validity and
> rigour are:
>
> Quality:
>
> Marshall, J. (2004) Living systemic thinking:
> Exploring quality in first-person action research.
> Action Research Vol 2 (3) 2004 pp 309-329.
>
> Guidelines for Quality in Autobiographical Forms of
> Self Study Research.
> Bullough, R. & Pinnegar, S. (2001) Educational
> Researcher Vol. 30, No.3, pp. 13-21.
>
> Social Validity
>
> On social validity I continue to focus on Habermas:
>
> Habermas, J. (1976) Communication and the evolution
> of society. London; Heinemann
>
> "I shall develop the thesis that anyone acting
> communicatively must, in performing any speech
> action, raise universal validity claims and suppose
> that they can be vindicated (or redeemed).
> Insofar as he wants to participate in a process of
> reaching understanding, he cannot avoid raising
> the following – and indeed precisely the following –
> validity claims. He claims to be:
>
> a) Uttering something understandably;
> b) Giving (the hearer) something to understand;
> c) Making himself thereby understandable. And
> d) Coming to an understanding with another person.
>
> The speaker must choose a comprehensible expression
> so that speaker and hearer can
> understand one another. The speaker must have the
> intention of communicating a true
> proposition (or a propositional content, the
> existential presuppositions of which are satisfied)
> so
> that the hearer can share the knowledge of the
> speaker. The speaker must want to express his
> intentions truthfully so that the hearer can believe
> (p.2) the utterance of the speaker (can trust
> him). Finally, the speaker mush choose an utterance
> that is right so that the hearer can accept the
> utterance and speaker and hearer can agree with on
> another in the utterance with respect to a
> recognized normative background. Moreover,
> communicative action can continue undisturbed
> only as long as participants suppose that the
> validity claims they reciprocally raise are
> justified." ((Habermas, 1976, pp.2-3)
>
> Rigour
>
> Richard Winters' six principles of rigour of
> dialectical critique; reflexive critique, risk,
> plural
> structure, multiple resource and theory practice
> transformation.
> Winter, R . (1989) Learning from Experience. London;
> Falmer.
>
> I also stress in my supervision/tutoring of
> practitioner-research the importance of Bob
> Bullough's
> and Stefinnee Pinnegar's insight that:
>
> "The consideration of ontology, of one’s being in
> and toward the world, should be a central
> feature of any discussion of the value of self-study
> research" (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2004 p. 319)
>
> Bullough, R. & Pinnegar, S. (2004) Thinking about
> the thinking about self-study: An Analysis of
> Eight Chapters, in Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L.
> LaBoskey, V. K, Russell, T. International
> Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and
> Teacher-Education Practices. Dordrecht, Kluwer
> Academic Publishers.
>
> Love Jack.
>
Brian E. Wakeman
Education adviser
Dunstable
Beds
|