This paper emerges from an ongoing case study exploring, “what is it like to be a Chartered Teacher doing action research?”. It seeks to raise some questions and explore taken-for-granted assumptions about teachers doing action research. The case study comprises six teachers although the focus for this paper is primarily on one teacher’s story (Kay). Action research has become a widely accepted and popular form of teacher professional development/learning, within the UK and internationally. Numerous teacher professional development initiatives have at their core the notion of the teacher as researcher, investigating and enquiring about aspects of their professional practice (see Altrichter et al, 2008; McNiff and Whitehead, 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2004). In Scotland this is manifest in the Chartered Teacher initiative. Chartered Teacher status, introduced in 2003, is achievable by qualification and intended to develop and reward enhanced practice. Whilst action research may be a valuable form of professional development supported through award-bearing courses (such as Chartered Teacher programmes), funded projects or partnerships with university colleagues, we must question to what extent this is continued and/or valued by teachers beyond the parameters of CPD courses. When teachers are working within their own contexts without the support or legitimacy of these courses/partnerships does the research continue and what shape does this take? To begin to interrogate issues relating to teachers as action researchers, complexity theory is used as the theoretical framework. Complexity theory demands a questioning or problematizing of assumptions, meanings or ‘best-practices’, and therefore thinking through this lens offers new possibilities for interrupting traditional structures (Davis & Sumara, 2006). This perspective allows me to draw upon an epistemology of the unique and particular, as described by Griffiths and Macleod (2008). It places greater value on knowledge generated from research in/from/about unique and particular contexts, which is particularly apt for this study. Griffiths and Macleod (ibid) suggest this is essential to enable a questioning of universal truths, theories or ‘what works’ dogmas. By telling the ‘little stories’ and addressing the question of ‘what is it like’ (Cotton and Griffiths, 2007), it is my intention to create an opportunity for discussion that may perhaps illuminate, challenge and disrupt theories and understanding of teachers as action researchers/doing action research. The questions raised through this study will be of interest to any teacher and teacher educator engaged in action research activity.

To explore teachers’ lived experience of engaging in post-award non-funded action research, a case-study approach is adopted. This is particularly appropriate to understand meaning from the position of the individuals involved, providing insights into their beliefs, assumptions, values and actions and developing a picture of ‘what it is like’ (Stake; 2005, Pring; 2000). In-depth loosely structured interviews were adopted and documentary evidence created. The teachers were interviewed individually on three occasions throughout the school year. A broadly inductive approach to the analysis was taken to begin open coding of the data and generate emergent themes. As I believe the teachers’ individual stories are critically important and I was keen not reduce these to ‘codes’ and ‘categories’, a narrative analysis approach was also taken (Charmaz, 2006; Ezzy, 2002). This paper draws primarily upon the narrative analysis.

Kay’s’ story(ies) brings to the foreground some assumptions about teachers’ action research. In particular the model of action research as a spiral or cycle. The spiral/cycle has become a shibboleth for action research and it is perhaps difficult to conceive of it as anything else. However, as Radford (2007:271-272) advises, the link between research and action is more problematic than the cycle model suggests. Through the rich metaphors Kay uses she challenges and is challenged by the traditional models of action research. It is becoming evident that they fail to adequately take into consideration the complex and dynamic reality of doing action research. If we recognise teacher action research as something more complex and distinctly different from the spiral model then what would it look like? How might we support teachers and schools? What kind of questions might teachers start asking? This paper begins to consider these questions.