'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
|
