Comprobación de la Hipótesis Específica 3

McNiff states that action researchers usually begin an enquiry by asking questions of the kind, ‘How do I improve my work?’ It then follows through a fairly systematic research process which may be expressed in the following terms:

I reach a critical point in my practice;

I feel the need to act;

I act in a chosen direction;

I monitor and evaluate my actions;

I change the direction of my actions in the light of my evaluation.

(McNiff, 2000, p.202)

McNiff implies that when a worrying situation emerges from any workplace, immediate action is needed to resolve the situation before anything gets worse. In this case, after decentralization devolved most educational responsibility to the DEO level, educational managers were worrying that DEO service quality had not improved as much as expected. As a consequence, immediate action is needed to improve it. But before detailing actions taken, a number of questions need to be answered to understand more about action research. Where is it originally from?

What paradigms support its existence? What characteristics does it have? What research methodologies are most useful? What changes might result from action research? And finally, what process or steps are entailed in this methodology?

According to Kock (2008), action research (AR) originated independently in the U.S.

and England in the 1940s. In the U.S., AR emerged from the work of Kurt Lewin on a variety of topics, ranging from child welfare to group dynamics. Lewin was a German-born social psychologist, whom many see as the father of AR (as cited in Kock, 2008). “Kurt Lewin (1948) remarked that research which produced nothing but a book is inadequate. This means that any research ought to be fruitful and contribute something to the object or work place being researched. AR is a more powerful tool for change and improvement at the local level” (as cited in Cohen, 2005, p. 226-227). In this case, AR should also contribute to improving DEO service quality.

Kock (2008) elaborates that action research can be conducted in ways that are aligned with most epistemologies, including the positivist, interpretivist, and critical epistemologies. Action research can have as its unit of analysis the individual, the small group, and even the entire organization. It can be used to address issues as varied as health concerns, environmental problems, engineering techniques, and business methods. But most importantly, one of the key characteristics that distinguishes action research from most other research approaches and also constitutes one of its main appeals is that action research aims at both improving the subject of the study (often called the research client) and generating knowledge, achieving both at the same time (Kock, 2008). This means that action research is consistent with RMIT Research by Project.

Some of the action research characteristics are also described by Zuber-Skerritt (1996) as follows: Critical (and self-critical) collaborative inquiry by reflective practitioners being, accountable and making results of the inquiry public, self-evaluating the practice and engaged in, participatory problem solving and continuous professional development (Zuber-Skerritt, 1996, p. 228). In relation to DEO service quality, I suggest that whenever DEO stakeholders are collaboratively critical of the DEO’s ability to serve schools, and continuously practice self-evaluation, DEOs will gain an improved ability to serve schools.

Concerning action research types, Hatten (1997) argues that there are at least three main types of action research; technical, practical and emancipatory. The goal of technical action research is the testing of an intervention based on a pre-specified theoretical framework. “The researcher is questioning whether the selected intervention can be applied in a practical setting. The researcher acts as an outside expert who aims to gain the practitioner's interest in the research, and agreement to assist in the implementation of the intervention” (Hatten, 1997). This is why if the MONE is to improve DEOs service quality, then this technical type of action research principle is appropriate, because researcher and participants should gain mutual understanding and agreement on what the problem of service quality is and how to resolve it.

If action research is to change something in an organization; what changes prove it’s an appropriate good action? Kemmis and Taggart in Hughes (2001) suggest that changes should be made across three categories: language and discourse (what is said in the situation), activities and practices (what is done in the situation), and social relationships and organization (who says and does what to whom). This notion is significant to my perception because all DEO stakeholders have to have the same level of understanding first on what service quality is all about before deciding on the necessary activities to improve it. Secondly, it is important that all stakeholders accept the same service quality improvement model. This is why it is very important for an action researcher to describe each specific change he or she plans to make.

Another important aspect of action research that needs to be understood is

‘collaborative participation’. Hughes (2004) in this context suggests that the word means ‘participation in decision making’. DEO stakeholders as co-researchers therefore, are those who engage in dialogue so that their contribution can make a difference to the questions asked, the action taken, the research design, the action plan and/or the dissemination of results. In this case, passive participation does not count and most importantly any information from key participants, especially DEO staff members, principals-teachers and board members needs to be valued properly.

Coorey explains in Cohen (2005) that action research is a process in which practitioners study problems scientifically so that they can evaluate, improve and steer decision making and practice. While according to Kemmis and Taggart, also in Cohen (2005), action research is to plan, act, observe and reflect more carefully, more systematically, and more rigorously than one usually does in everyday life.

This is why action research is usually designed to bridge the gap between research and practice (Cohen, 2005, p. 226-227).

Based on the discussion of action research characteristics above, now I am more confident that by going on the action research path, I will have gone in the right direction in my journey of knowing and finding the right answers for my research questions. All of these discussions strengthen my judgment that action research is an appropriate methodology in researching DEO service quality improvement.