Editorial

MANY VOICES, SAME INTENTIONS:
PERFORMING ACTION RESEARCH AT VARIOUS LEVELS IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM

Kurt Clausen, Co-Editor

Throughout his career, the social theorist Kurt Lewin fought a continuing battle to put “action” into the pursuit of social research:

The research needed for social practice can best be characterized as research for social management or social engineering. It is a type of action-research, a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action, and research leading to social action. Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice (1948: 202-3)

To him, the direct result of research should be the attainment of social change - of personal enlightenment leading to an altered and clearly superior behaviour in the researcher’s worldview. Since its inception, however, Action Research has been held under close scrutiny for two reasons. First, critics have been suspicious of its biased, partisan nature (in that it overtly desires to see particular changes due to the research). Second, because of the “micro-level” in which the researcher is concerned, critics have questioned its rigour.

On the other side, many Action Researchers have adhered to Lewin’s “action research spiral” method. As a result, they dismiss (or at least ignore) the more generalizable, abstract concepts that exist beyond the situation under study.

All the contributors to this edition have tended to break the perimeters of these two camps to a certain extent. To be more specific, each has attempted to use both the “larger scheme of things” (i.e, more generalized research, policy, theory) in conjunction with their own experience-based research in order to more clearly understand their situation.

Dan Jarvis’ project, for example, bases itself on students’ and faculty members’ responses, but also provincial data to come to some decisions regarding an implementation of sustained silent reading. Cab Cobb likewise brings together Ministry policies and his own experiences to not bring some authenticity on his own situation, but to press for revised thinking towards behavioural learners. Joseph Zammit, working in a vocational program, seems to spend much of his time looking at the “larger world” for which he is preparing his students. To answer his research questions, therefore, he must perform a balancing act between the two worlds in which he lives (the “larger world” and the “school community”). Rather than finding answers in one place, he has found himself “cannibalizing” as much information as possible from both sides to come to a conclusion. Finally, Caitríona McDonagh’s article goes the furthest in extending the use of voice, and empowers the students in her study - so often they are seen as subjects of study rather than as research partners.

In using both the larger issues and their own situation through action research, the contributors have deepened and developed their classroom practice and gained insight into their situation. Rather than just accepting and implementing policies, and saying they “should” work, these Action Research projects have given the authors a sense of enlightenment and empowerment over their own situations. Perhaps, in this way, Kurt Lewin’s strongest legacy is his spirit rather than any specific methods of Action Research. McTaggart (1996) comments that “Action Research is not a ‘method’ or a ‘procedure’ for research but a series of commitments to observe and problematize through practice a series of principles for conducting social enquiry” (p. 248). To follow it blindly would be to run down a dead alley, like any other dogma.

In an era when the empirical-analytical research was the only legitimate approach, Lewin was able to deepen understanding and add contributors to the then small coterie of experts. The contributors of this edition follow this legacy. They are more interested in satisfying their own questions than in following one set method to get there. In doing so they stretch the limits of Lewin’s Action Research itself and, in a sense, become the experts of their location.

References

Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving social conflicts; selected papers on group dynamics. Gertrude W. Lewin (ed.). New York: Harper & Row, 1948.

McTaggart, R. (1996) ‘Issues for participatory action researchers’ in O. Zuber-Skerritt (ed.) New Directions in Action Research, London: Falmer Press.