El Valor substancial del dinero

of highl ighting fundamental understandings and principles of action research . The paradox of defining terminology while being responsive to contextual demands is explicated , and the notion of contrad ictory principles w ithi n the study of action research is advanced .

Elliott offers a simple and succinct definition of action research as:

the study of a social situation with a view to i mproving the quality of action with i n it. (Ell iott, 1 98 1 : 1 )

Action research can therefore be considered relevant in any social setting . I t is concerned with change (improvement) , not merely monitoring but actually executing change. Although Ell iott's definition is tantal izing in its simp l icity, various terms require elaboration. F irstly, what is meant by study? Bogdan and B iklen ( 1 982 : 2 1 5 ; cited i n McKernan, 1 99 1 : 4) state that action research :

is the systematic collection of information that i s designed to bring about social change.

Some rigour of 'scientific' research is impl ied in this definition. Action research encompasses more than intuition or spontaneous discussion. The word systematic, impl ies that data collection occurs over a period of time, that it is planned and has the ultimate purpose of social change. However, the systematic collection of information does not in itself ensure change. Processing of the information is necessary, but by whom and how? Exactly what data ought to be collected and which methodologies are most appropriate, are not explicated in this definition. Of paramount concern are neglected questions: who collects this information and for what particular purposes?

Carr and Kemm is ( 1 986: 1 62 , cited in McKernan, 1 99 1 :4) postulate a definition rooted in critical-emancipatory terms :

action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rational ity and justice of their own practices , their understanding of these practices and the situations in which the practices are carried out.

Carr and Kemmis' definition, wh ile ind icating elements of critical theory , also incorporates ownersh ip of the enquiry, being that of the participants , that is , those people who will be affected by any subsequent action. This belief is associated with Lewi n ' s assertions in section one above, of the importance of i nvolving workers in decis ions. The defin ition implicates the prime, indeed sole, responsibility of enquiry by participants , that is, insiders rather than outsiders. Not only do the participants collect the data, but they also analyze it to understand and justify their practices . Each participant must understand and justify his or her own practices , and the

circumstances surrounding the practice. Process and product are deemed important, for the s ituations in which the practices occur are also i ncluded. The means and the ends must be l inked in j ust and rational processes . U nderstanding per se is not the only purpose of action research, as improvement is inextricably intertwi ned, signifying that actioning of improved process and product is the essence.

The notion of collaborative teacher-researcher projects appears to be downgraded i n this definition, for of prime concern i s self-reflection. Rationality and j ustice of their

own practices is emphasised by those involved in the social s ituation. An i n-depth understanding of the culture is required, and if long-term action is the heart of action research, then only participants can be ultimately responsible. Consideration of what constitutes rationality and justice is significant, but is more germane later in this chapter. Another issue is important here. Is a social s ituation merely that, or IS

action research applicable to formal organisations , and in particular, schools?

Watt and Watt ( 1 993 : 36) highl ight the relevance of action research to the study of education and schools:

Action research IS a systematic mqUiry by collaborative, self-critical communities of teachers which takes place in schools , out of the need to improve educational knowledge and practices .

I n this definition the concepts of systematic inquiry, communities of teachers (that is , the participants within the social situation) , and improvement are in agreement with

earl ier cited definitions of action research . New i ns ights i ncorporate concepts of 'self-critical communities ' , 'collaboration ' and 'educational knowledge and practices ' . The influence of studies of both reflection and critical theory are evident here with

the notion of sel f-critical communities . As Somekh (1 989) maintains , action research

is a value-laden, moral activity. Knowledge is constructed by each individual through a process of reflection through action, or as a result of in-depth d iscussion w ith others . It is contextualised and is necessarily reflective because people become trapped in a web of personal and professional responses and actions (Schon, 1 983 ; Somekh, 1 989). It is only by developing a critical awareness that participants can d iscern deeper insights into their own activities and wider social or political implications.

I n the Watts' above cited definition, the goal of improvement not only in practice but

i n u nderstanding and educational knowledge, elevates the status of teachers to that of researchers. Teachers are promoted to an equal footing with academ ics in the generation of educational knowledge. It is only in situations of equal ity that true collaboration can arise. Kyle and McCutcheon ( 1 984) write of such collaborative research between teachers and researchers. They deplore the consultant relationships of most teacher-researcher activity and instead advocate equity in the research role. This equity necessitates incorporation of teachers ' more practical concerns and questions into the research des ign itself, cons idering perceptions of classroom events from both the teachers and outside researchers ' perspectives , and encouraging teachers to contribute to the theoretical writing . New issues arise in allocating

appropriate roles and responsibil ities , choosing the approach and identifying partnersh ips with the requisite interpersonal , communication and reflective skills. Sharing of expertise within self-critical communities is possible however, when knowledge is seen to be constructed by each ind ividual , not something which can be packaged and passed on to others (Somekh , 1 989) . Meaningful dialogue or discourse can only occur when a common language is spoken. Language is culturally and structurally bound, and thus resorting to academic jargon is violating the concepts of community and collaboration.

It is these notions of language, equal ity and importance of context that led writers such as H ustler, Cassidy and Cuff ( 1 986) ; Somekh ( 1 989) ; Ovens ( 199 1 ) ; and Johnston ( 1 993) , to argue against defining the term action research . Logically a definition of action research would be a denial of principles of participation, self­ realisation and collaboration.

A definition would set out to be authoritative and deny participants in action research the power to develop their own principles and procedures . (Somekh, 1 989:25)

The difficulty in defining action research is due partly to its d iverse app lications to a variety of educational problems and contexts . A tight definition would necessarily restrict its appl ication, while a general definition would be open to misinterpretation. Nevertheless, elements of rigour must be maintained, for otherwise it is unclear whether an approach is using the action research label falsely, or whether it is a genuine attempt to adapt action research to a specific context or problem. The tension between research and action, and between theory and practice are therefore evident; an issue which is addressed later in the chapter.

Resolving the issue of a carefully defined, precise agreement on what constitutes action research without being unduly restricted , requires a different conception. According to Johnston ( 1 993) , a useful approach has been to define certain principles which should underl ie action research and to describe the type of inquiry in which participants should be engaged. What principles of action research are agreed upon?

Cop ious principles of action research abound in action research l iterature. To provide structure to the following d iscussion, principles are organised into three broad headings: those related to organisational culture, mode of enquiry , and effects . Culture

The most general feature of action research is its natural istic setting . There is no attempt to control setting variables, but rather to study the s ituation in-situ . As noted above, Schon ( 1 983) argued that practitioners , and indeed professionals, were not able to rigidly apply abstract theories in their work. Professional skills required recognition of both the unique features of the situation and the factors of commonal ity . Some reflection-in-action was necessary to derive an appropriate

solution to an emerging problem. Thus, action research offered a real istic approach to studying the complexity of modern organisations , and schools in particular. Lomax ( 1 99 1 ) noted the importance of action research being responsive to the context. As a consequence, action research operates in the tension between its two ideals of rigorous application of theory and continuing openness to development of practice. Relevant everyday practical problems , difficulties or situations of i nterest are generated by the practitioners themselves ; not theoretical ideas i mposed by outside researchers . I nevitably, some compromise between the theory of action research and its practical appl ication occurs . To artificial ly impose action research on teachers, interferes with the natural setting and removes control of the process from the participants . When problems are owned by the participants , commitment to the process and the consequences of intervention occurs. Freedom to experiment is paramount (Lieberman, 1 986) , if teachers are to discover improved understandings and ways of operating . Motivation to experiment arises from investigation of relevant problems which the teacher wishes to improve in his or her own setting. Appropriate methodolog ies will be context-specific, not necessarily adherent to academic principles.

Freedom to experiment is only possible in environments promoting self-determination and equity. Where each individual is encouraged to examine her own practices (cf Carr and Kemmis, 1 986: 1 62) and recognised as a researcher in her own right, then empowerment of the participant to change her own circumstances occurs. Action research can be emancipatory when free participation occurs, giving increased autonomy through collective reflection.

Taking action in a social situation can be political for frequently the status quo is challenged and relations of power altered (McTaggart and S i ngh , 1 986) . Improving practice means taking a broad , historically sensitive, socially and pol itically aware perspective in action research to improve educational practice.

As wel l as providing a context where valued practices m ight be protected and developed , institutional isation produces bureaucratization, routinisation, hierarchial inertia and instrumentalism. Action research immediately throws into question the capacity of the institution to fulfil its promises , to l ive up to its principles . Action research problematises the values o f the i nstitution and its constituents by questioning both institutional ways of working and the context the institution affords for the construction and reconstruction of practices . (McTaggart and S ingh , 1 986:43)

Awareness of problems and contradictions arises through reflexive practice. Winter ( 1 989) explains reflexivity as a questioning process , as a way of apprais ing a statement and generating possible alternatives to counteract taken-for-granted interpretations . Reflexivity relates to the art of dialectics ; the art of asking questions and seeking truth . The person who knows how to ask questions is able to pers ist in her questioning , which involves being able to preserve her orientation towards openness (Larter, 1 989) . Internal contradictions can then become evident. According

to Winter ( 1 989) , the fundamental contradiction within each phenomenon between its unity and its diversity signals the process of change. This instability leads to change. Once participants realize the temporary and situational basis of knowledge, they are more l ikely to generate their own understandings. Every person's point of view is taken as a contribution to the resources for understanding .

Differences between viewpoints constitute serious challenges o r questions regardless of the social status of the member who puts it. Focusing on the contradictory elements of a viewpoint enables us to give full recognition to those fleeting glimpses of ideas which we normally dismiss as ' irrelevant' because they don' t fit in with the rest of our conceptual framework. (Winter,

1 989: 57)

The art of dialectics also impl ies objectivity. Objectivity in this sense presupposes an exploratory stance, an awareness of one's own value biases , a willingness to make them exp l icit and an open attitude towards the evidence. This process can only occur where there is a free flow of information amongst participants , within a mutual ly agreed eth ical framework (Ell iott, 1 978) . Basic respect for individuals, confidentiality and negotiation are at the heart of an effective action research culture (Watt and Watt, 1 993) .

I n sharing information in dialogue and discourse participants risk former taken-for­ granted assumptions , their status and control . Encouragi ng participation and collaborative relationships requires equal ity and democracy between researchers and practitioners, and amongst practitioners as one's subjectivity is chal lenged (Winter,

1 989) .

A central challenge in supporting action research by teachers is to create the context for shared honest inquiry and real learning among participants . (Watt and Watt, 1 993 : 38)

Creation of a school culture of support is critical to effective action research . The process of consultations required to decide on an issue of concern requires skills and strategies not always famil iar to participants (Johnston, 1 993) . Some relatively junior members of staff have neither confidence nor influence to organise necessary discussions within their schools.

School-level changes requ ire a different set of skills because of the need to work with other teachers, both individual ly and in groups . The social and pol itical context of the school setting becomes more important, as does the level of influence of the teachers attempting to bring about change within the school . The issue of power is important in school-level change. It is more l ikely to be successful when senior administrators are involved . They tend to be more skilled and able to use organisational and communication channels. (Johnston, 1 993 :24)

of equality, collaboration and critical communities . Other constraints affecting school communities include: lack of time and resources, and lack of research skills (McKernan, 1 99 1 ) . Subtle undercurrents among the staff may make it impossible for any individual or group within a school to initiate or sustain collaborative research (Forward, 1 989) .

Carr and Kemmis ( 1 986) advocate the establ ishment of critical communities, particularly w ith the principle of participation (that those people who will be affected by the research ought to be involved) but in certain circumstances existing communities actually inhibit rather than enhance the course of action research. The heart of action research is the self-reflective ind ividual (Whitehead , 1 993) . I ndeed, Stenhouse argued that the outstanding characteristic of the professional teacher moving towards emancipation is:

. . the capacity for autonomous professional self-development through systematic self-study, through the study of the work of other teachers and through the testing of ideas by classroom research procedures . (cited in McKernan, 1 99 1 :48)

Although ultimately the person needs a critical community to val idate theories through practice, triangulation and cross-perceptual studies; the individual may initially make greater progress worki'ng alone if the environment is not conducive to collaboration. Naturally, working on the social situation would be an ultimate goal of such a situation, but the relevance of the person 's problem , i n a setting over which she has control , is the essence of action research. This is what is meant by negotiation and responsiveness to context, for some principles of action research may need to be temporarily suspended in order to fulfil other principles.

Johnston continues in her concern for the realities of conducting action research:

Coping with resistance from other staff members could be a problem. Tripp ( 1 980) mentions how our own personal ities and social relationships may act as constraints and that possible courses of action open to us are determined by the amount of risk we are prepared to take ( 1 63) . (Johnston, 1 993 :25)

The relevance of support networks such as CARN is presently highl ighted. Questioning of establ ished practices is only possible in a climate of support and openness where individuals feel safe to take the necessary r isks . Projects such as TIQL, and PALM indicate the success of working with committed teachers who were supported by a smal l group of teachers within their schools. Not all staff need to be involved from the outset, although significant social and pol itical change will necessitate larger groups of people being involved . Beg inning with the ind ividual teacher was successful in TIQL. Ell iott ( 1 978: 1 67) provides some cause for hope in a less than conducive environment:

My experience has always been that teachers tend to develop critiques of the macro-context of their practices during the processes of reflectively developing

and testing their practical theories .

A self-critical stance enhances this process of reflection , deliberation, and integration of theory and practice. Action research is intended to be more r igorous than informal contemplation and thus consideration of relevant modes of enquiry is important. Application of appropriate methodology is vital not only to the validity and rel iab il ity of the research , but also to the development of a critical community and ultimately, improved u nderstanding and practice.

Mode of

Action research employs a wide range of techniques , the details of which are the subject of the fol lowing section in th is chapter. The poi nt here is that action research is based on empirical evidence. Detailed written records of observational data, hunches , opinions , ins ights and other data (refer to the section on procedures below for details) confirms that action research is not pseudo-research but a discipl i ned form of enquiry w ith a clear methodology r igorously appl ied.

By stating problems , formulating action hypotheses , planning data collection, analyzing results and reformulating hypotheses, the action researcher exercises rigorous scientific principles of procedure. Theories are val idated through practice, governed by the criteria of fairness , relevance, and accuracy (McTaggart, 1 99 1 ).

Validity is one of action research's fundamental problems: limited in data, lacki ng an external ' uninvolved ' observer, its theorizing enmeshed in its practical interests, in what sense can action research claim to be objective or val id? (Winter, 1 989: 36)

Winter ( 1 989) argues that action researchers need to question and test opinions , bel iefs, assumptions and ideologies, so that eventually the understandings and practices are more securely based (more val id) than at the outset of the study. Only when procedures are systematically grounded in justifiable and coherent principles is there reason for thinking that one's conclusions are more than the result of