Response for Week 2
I have included all three necessary components, but this is much more informal than a conference proposal; in fact, it looks nothing like a conference proposal. And I think I went over the word count. Here it is:
In the first four chapters of Action Research: Principles and Practice, Jean McNiff (with Jack Whitehead) examine several aspects of action research, with their main concern being “the form of theory used to describe and explain action research processes, the whole business of whether we regard human enquiry as an objective phenomenon which we observe from a distance or as a living process of which we are part” (5-6). In order to discuss this, the authors develop Chomsky’s notion of E-language and I-language and apply the same principles to identify what they call E-theory and I-theory. For them, an “E-theory exists as a form of theory external to its creator and which is generated from study of the properties of external objects” while “[a]n I-theory is a dialectical form of theory, a property of an individual’s belief system, and is diachronic” (22). Throughout the first four chapters, McNiff (with Whitehead) posit that action research leads to I-theories of knowledge. Action research, then, should not be conducted from afar–it means the researcher needs to be open and honest with all the participants and should include some form of self reflection. However, they argue that action research is messy and uncertain–that is, action research has no concrete steps and no set process. As McNiff writes “I have become certain of the need for uncertainty” (5). Thus, they look to move away from models of action research that are formulaic (models such as Kemmis, Elliott, McKernan, etc.).
The emphasis on self reflection and evaluation, the recursive nature of action research, and a willingness to act (and not only observe) are all tenets of action research that seem appealing. However, I find it difficult to view any kind of research as process-less. While McNiff does not see “process as sequential or necessarily rational” I tend to think of process as structured–a sort of agenda setter, if you will. Thus, I found myself drawn to the model of Stephen Kemmis (planning-acting-observing-reflecting) and the flexibility of John Elliott (who argues the general idea should be allowed to shift). However, I have not engaged in any form of action research. If I wanted to truly see how action research worked–and to truly determine which model worked best for me–I would embark on a number of studies; perhaps one study would draw heavily on the ideas of Kemmis and Elliott and the other study I would embraces the messiness that McNiff encourages. Additionally, I could further research Kemmis and Elliott and determine if I truly do agree with their ideas (since McNiff only presents a kind of greatest hits).
