Writing Action Research For Publication: Transitional Times, Transitions in Practice and Theory
Author(s):
Jean McNiff (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2015
Network:
22. Research in Higher Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

22 SES 10 E, Quality Assessment and Evaluation

Paper Session

Time:
2015-09-10
15:30-17:00
Room:
395. [Main]
Chair:
Patrick Baughan

Contribution

Academics are under pressure to publish, and publications are used as a measure of academic performance, capacity and professional responsibility (Murray, 2012; Hyland, 2007). Yet not all academics find it easy to write, or know how to (Fanghanel, 2012). New career researchers are often expected to ‘pick up’ the knowledge and skills of writing, and established researchers often experience tensions between wishing to write for educational influence and institutional expectations to produce scientific/social scientific texts for high impact journals.

 

The situation becomes more problematic when the methodology is action research, which is still seen by many editors and peer reviewers as a powerful form of professional education but not as a means of generating valid academic theory (Hammersley, 2004; Taber, 2013). Further, the form and content of action research texts often contradict the canons of conventional research – its narrative emergent form; a focus on learning from and through experience; the focus on the ‘I’; reporting the politically-constituted nature of the research within the research context under critical scrutiny. These forms do not always suit the analytical form of social science texts.

 

My research as an educational researcher and academic supporter focuses on helping colleagues learn to write for publication and achieve appropriate quality in action research texts such that the mainstream research peer community will take them seriously. I ask, ‘How do I support academic colleagues’ action enquiries for social change, and the publication of texts? How do I help them achieve appropriate quality in social and literary practices and capacity to assess what counts as high quality?’ Through this engagement I address the conference theme of how educational research can contribute to social, economic and political transitions. I also argue that educational research itself and the form of theory it generates should be understood also as in transition, from current grand narrative perspectives (Lyotard, 1984) that prioritise dominant abstract forms of theory to pluralistic perspectives that value also localised dynamic transformational forms of theory. This involves an interrogation, re-imagination and negotiation of what counts as high quality in social and literary practices and which kinds of criteria are used to judge quality.

 

I adopt different strategies, beginning with helping colleagues develop self-perceptions as activist writers and to see writing as a form of symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1990). As well as fulfilling traditionalist criteria for their practices and texts (demonstrating generalisability and methodological rigour), we also identify new, politically-oriented criteria, including:

 

The capacity for parrhesia (Foucault, 2001): speaking one’s truth through making original contributions to knowledge of the field. This involves criteria of:

 

  • frankness: the speaker believes what they say
  • truth: the speaker knows what truth is and can communicate it to others
  • courage: the speaker accepts the risk of telling the truth
  • criticism: the speaker exercises critique towards self and others
  • duty: the speaker accepts the responsibility of telling the truth

 

The capacity for communicative competence as an initial condition for communicative action, involving criteria proposed by Habermas (1987):

 

  • The speaker speaks comprehensibly;
  • The speaker speaks the truth;
  • The speaker is authentic;
  • The speaker demonstrates appreciation for normative contextualized understandings

 

The capacity to demonstrate critical engagement: this involves engaging critically with and re-thinking one’s own thinking, in light of critical responses from others, including the literatures. It involves addressing Winter’s (1989) principles of action research: the demonstration of: reflective critique, dialectical critique, collaborative resource, acceptance of risk, pluralist structure, linking theory and practice.

 

The capacity to demonstrate ethical practices in social interactions and through texts: this involves demonstrating the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, justice and contextual caring (Olsen et al, 2003).

Method

I offer two case studies for examination: the first concerns work in Norway with university-based professional educators in nursing and healthcare, 2011–2014; the second concerns work with an international community in compiling an edited collection for worldwide publication, ongoing since 2014. These projects have taken the form of collaborative action enquiries into how we can produce books and journal articles appropriate for mainstream publication. While committed to improving social situations through action research, all are aware of a potential practice-communication gap when writing capacity falls short of practice capacity. We organize workshops and retreats with a focus on writing as a practice, working collaboratively and critically, and engaging with our own critical thinking while encouraging peers to do the same. All agree to stay the course, since commitment to sustained study, practice and critique is essential to building confidence and capacity. The provision of such resources enables both capacity and the capability to use it (Sen, 1999). We monitor practices systematically, and produce data in the form of • reflective diaries, to show the development of critical thinking, practice improvement and development of writing capacity; • voice and videotape recordings of feedback on workshops and writing retreats; • written accounts about the value of the collaboration, and as a means of identifying new directions for improvement; • archives of draft writing that demonstrate processes of composing, editing, revising and polishing. Our individual texts stand as our personal narratives of learning (extracts from authors’ texts available at presentation), while our collaborative texts show the processes of coming-to-know through dialogical enquiry (extracts supplied). We identify criteria that include demonstrating quality in practice through the capacity to: link thinking and acting in processes of making judgements (see Coulter and Wiens, 2002); develop awareness that the research should be relevant to users’ needs; show in practice the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, justice and contextual caring (Olsen et al, 2003). Criteria for demonstrating quality in writing include: knowledge transformation (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987), i.e. transitions from offering narratives to analysing and communicating their significance to readers, and capacity for transforming knowledge in the head into public theory on the page and for the world. Documentation exists to show the transformation of our community of practice (Wenger, 1998), which does not require participation, into a community of enquiry (Garrison and Anderson, 2003), which does.

Expected Outcomes

We generate evidence from the data using the methodological principle of transforming values into practices that may contribute to the social good (McNiff, 2013). This raises critical questions, including: Whose values? Which practices? Given commitments to values pluralism (Berlin, 1990; Sacks, 2003), judgements about social validity need to reflect the service-user’s values and interests as well as the researcher’s, thus demonstrating the dialogical nature of the encounter. This has special relevance for the written outputs of action research, given that the quality of the researcher-writer is judged through the quality of their research and writing. If practitioners wish to maintain elements of political critique which has historically been the basis of much socially-oriented action research, they need to ensure that the quality of writing does not distort the message or misrepresent the capacity of the authors. Awareness of these issues is essential if researchers wish to be successful in their writing, especially in action research, to show the legitimacy of action research as a valid form of practical theorising, and to ensure that the political is not eliminated from the social (Herr and Anderson, 2005). Through raising standards in their practice and writing, especially in relation to articulating criteria appropriate for dialogical forms of research, researchers can demonstrate how phronesis (practical wisdom) may be vindicated as a legitimate basis of theory generation that has far reaching implications for what counts as educational theory for social good. Our research groups and their written outputs could be seen as representing the development of a new public sphere, where people may come together on an equal footing to discuss questions about what kind of world we should create where we may become the people we wish to be, and how we may achieve it.

References

Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1987) The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Berlin, I. (1990) Four Essays on Liberty. London: Oxford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity. Coulter, D. and Wiens, J. (2002) ‘Educational Judgment: Linking the Actor and the Spectator’, Educational Researcher, 31 (4): 15–25. Fanghanel, J. (2012) Being an Academic. Abingdon: Routledge. Foucault, M. (2001) Fearless Speech. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e). Garrison, R. and Anderson, T. (2003) E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. New York: Routledge. Habermas, J. (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume Two: The Critique of Functionalist Reason. Oxford: Polity. Hammersley, M. (2004) ‘Action Research: a contradiction in terms?’, Oxford Review of Education, 30 (2): 165-181 Herr, K. and Anderson, G. (2005) The Action Research Dissertation. New York: Sage. Hyland, K. (2007) Writing in the Academy: Reputation, Education and Knowledge. University of London: Institute of London Press. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press. McNiff, J. (2013) Action Research: Principles and Practice (3rd edition). Abingdon: Routledge. Murray, R. (2012) ‘Developing a community of research practice’, British Educational Research Journal, 38 (5): 783–800. Olsen, D.P. et al. (2003) ‘Ethical Considerations in International Nursing Research: A Report from the International Centre for Nursing Ethics’, Nursing Ethics 19 (2): 122–137. Sacks, J. (2003) The Dignity of Difference. London: Continuum. Taber, K. (2013) ‘Action research and the Academy: seeking to legitimise a ‘different’ form of research’, Teacher Development: An International journal of teachers’ professional development: 17 (2): 288–300. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Winter, R. (1989) Learning from Experience. London, Falmer.

Author Information

Jean McNiff (presenting / submitting)
York St John University, United Kingdom

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.