Métodos y procedimientos que sustentan la propuesta.

The overarching model chosen in this research is that termed Participatory Action Research (PAR) developed by Kemmis and

McTaggart (2003). However because this is primarily practice- focused research, with historical, social, political and cultural dimensions, it is important to highlight that the work is strongly underpinned by the PAR philosophical and methodological base, but by the nature of the research it is reported from a historical perspective. Thus several of the chapters presented here are historical in content with a clearly defined social background and setting. However the interactions between the key participants and the overarching rationale for the development of the EUSO, are clearly located in a PAR philosophy and “behind the scenes” action and progression pattern.

This is captured in the Kemmis and McTaggart routine - Plan, Act, Observe, Reflect: – graphically illustrated below:

Figure 4.6 Kemmis and McTaggart (2003) Model of Action Research

This model follows the generic AR model in that it ‘focuses on

simultaneous action and research in a participative manner’ and

shares its characteristics: (Gray 2006 p. 374))

 Research subjects are themselves researchers or involved in a democratic partnership with a researcher.  Research is seen as a mechanism for change.

 Data are generated from the direct experiences of research participants.

However, it takes this latter point particularly seriously: it is participatory action research. For McTaggart (1997) participation is much more than mere involvement.

‘The criterion of success is not whether participants have followed the steps faithfully but rather whether they have a strong and authentic sense of development and evolution in their practices, their understandings of their practices, and the

situations in which they practise’, (Kemmis and McTaggart,

2003, p. 277).

Authentic participation means that the participants become immersed in the research, a requirement for PAR given that its key element is, arguably,

“…a process of reflection, social learning and the development

of ‘critical consciousness’ (Gaventa and Cornwall, 2001, p.76).

Another defining characteristic for this researcher is the focus on investigation of actual as distinct from abstract practices and the concentration on transformation of practitioners’ practices in an egalitarian manner. Hence its frequent application in the educational sphere and its particular suitability in the current context towards the establishment of the EUSO.

4.5.2 Research Approach

In adopting the PAR model, the researcher was keen to ensure that adherence to its tenets would be as comprehensive as possible. This implied careful and continuous consideration not just of its dominant feature, the spiral of cycles of self-reflection, but also of seven additional features identified by Kemmis and McTaggart, (2003, p. 280) as attaching to the approach and as being ‘at least as important’. These include the following, which have been applied to this research. PAR is a social process: In this research the Olympiad community met, interacted and established social relationships at the annual event. Within this social group they were invited to discuss their one Olympiad and how it might be improved and how a new Olympiad could be different.

PAR is participatory: This research engaged the mentors in examining their own understanding of the Olympiad and the Olympiad movement and involved them in discussions on how bring about change.

PAR is practical and collaborative: This research engaged the participants in examining the social practices that link them, the Olympiads, and through their collaboration effect change.

PAR is emancipatory: This research provided the participants with the opportunity to release themselves from the constraints of the Olympiads structures that seemed unchangeable, to one in which they could make their own rules.

PAR is reflexive (e.g., recursive, dialectical): This research helped the participants to investigate their own reality in order to change it and to change that reality in order to investigate it.

PAR aims to transform: This research provided the platform for the participants to transform both theory and practice. They could through their actions, transform the science Olympiad idea from single subject of multidisciplinary, from individual to team, from competition to cooperation and from a theory based to exclusively experimental.

4.5.3 Challenges

As the researcher reflected upon the aim of this project and the requirements of the PAR model being applied, the scale of task appeared, at times, almost insurmountable. Clearly, the concept of an EUSO had to appeal to EU governments, educators and students and to the international community. The PAR approach would require the establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive process of collaboration, the exact nature of which was not initially obvious. It would encounter an array of influences and activities but would only be successful if control was shared between participants and relationships sustained across time zones and geographical boundaries. It would also have to produce outcomes that would be mutually beneficial to participants from a variety of nations and cultures, while at the same time ensuring that ownership would be firmly and equitably in their possession.

A key concern for the researcher was the capacity of the PAR model to handle the inevitable challenge that the concept of an integrated, multidisciplinary science Olympiad would constitute for participants accustomed to conventional teaching methods and distinct subject specialisms. An additional concern related to its capacity to deal with the unexpected, whether in the personal and/or impersonal (e.g., economic) arena. In all such circumstances, the researcher consulted

with relevant colleagues and with his supervisor, engaged in self- reflection and re-immersed himself in the project with renewed confidence and vigour.