Koch and Kralik (2006) suggest the rigour of an action research project is related to the author’s worldview, the credibility and dependability of the inquiry, the transferability of
the findings and how believable the study is. My worldview as a researcher equates to one of the positions Greenwood and Levin (1998) include when explaining the differing approaches to action research. After summarising a range of approaches they state: “And a few simply advocate that whatever the question, participation is the answer” (p. 8). This is similar to my worldview as a manager and in part why I have included Wadsworth’s “stewardship without control” in the opening of this thesis. I facilitate and chair meetings, attending to the principles of equal participation and will often invite those who may not have had the opportunity to contribute to do so. Additionally, as I teach on nursing study days I regularly use this statement: ‘I am interested from any others I have not heard from yet …I am interested to hear what you think’.
I believe in order to try to advance knowledge and improve conditions surrounding a social situation it is helpful to ask the people in that situation what is going on. I wanted to conduct research that would further inform the evolution of the role of CNL and further improve the support afforded the role. My worldview as a manager and researcher has been informed to an extent by critical theory. McNiff and Whitehead’s (2006) explanation of critical theory being that it proposes that in order to change a situation you need to understand it, and social situations are generated by people, therefore they can be dismantled and re-constructed. They propose that whilst action research grew out of critical theory it went farther. They add that situations that are taken for granted need to be viewed in the context of power relationships. I believe that in this inquiry, the context of the DHB where the CNL is working cannot be separated from how that context might relate to the inquiry and the responses from those in the role.
The context where the research was undertaken was a DHB, one of 21 in New Zealand. The role of the CNL is encompassed within the clinical management structure of this organisation. There are other clinical leadership roles in nursing in other DHBs as indeed there are internationally. This inquiry can at the least inform those roles about the usefulness of acquiring further knowledge for role development by co-researching with those in the role. The importance of those participating in the research being represented adequately is related to the credibility of the inquiry. In this study there were two phases to
the design. The first phase was the interviews which allowed each individual CNL the opportunity to describe their experience of being a CNL. The second phase was the group meetings. The values and interests the seven CNLs brought to both phases of the inquiry were derived from the fact they were operating in the role before and throughout the research. They were well placed, sufficiently sophisticated in their knowledge, to contest the reasonableness of the interview data as well as subsequent data arising through the action research group. The interview data was thematically analysed by myself and presented back to the group as a list of themes. The group was established and ground rules which included balanced and respectful participation were agreed upon.
I simultaneously attended through both phases as Coghlan and Brannick (2005) describe, to the content, process and premise that were taking place. On interview, facilitating writing summaries and reflections I questioned what was going on. I believe that I brought to all stages of the research my belief that whatever the query, participation with those involved is the answer, in addition to what else is happening in this context, including my role and responsibility as researcher. Prior to commencing the research and in the planning as well as the analysis, I considered the role of the researcher who is also an employee within the organisation where the research is conducted. I, as the principal investigator, was also employed as a manager in the DHB where this research was undertaken. My position as a researcher with a long-standing interest in clinical leadership is of relevance to both the interview and action research group phases as well as this position as an insider researcher.
Dowling (2006) proposes that the researcher will have an effect on the phenomenon studied and it needs to be recognised that the researcher is also affected by being in the field. From the establishment of the group and through the group process I was conscious that my role was to ensure equal participation and that all voices were heard. Coghlan and Casey (2001) consider the tension of the researcher an insider, noting that there has been limited analysis of this dual role. They acknowledge, although challenging, nurses who carry out research within their own setting do so because they aim to improve certain aspects of practice, education and management. They refer to role duality as having the
responsibility as an employer as well as the responsibility as a researcher, which could translate into tension between loyalty to the organisation and loyalty to the research process and participants. I reflected regularly within a journal on my role in the action research meetings, aware of such considerations and Coghlan and Casey’s description of being the “insider” (p. 675).
The framing of the project is the key, according to Coghlan and Casey (2001), even to the detail of language used when referring to the aim of the project. To think in terms of issues is the preferred option they suggest. If terms such as problems are used, this may lead to convergent thinking. Equally, they add using the word “opportunity” (p. 678) will lead to divergent thinking, a sense of excitement and potential creativity. I was very aware of some of theses challenges at the outset. Finally, they summarise that one of the most important of issues for the nurse researcher is managing the politics of the organisation.
Undertaking an action research project in one’s own hospital is political and might even be considered subversive. In many respects action research is subversive: it examines everything, stresses listening, emphasizes questioning, fosters courage, incites action, abets reflection and endorses democratic participation. (p. 677)