How do we assess an action research project?

A problem here is that while for some of its leading proponents action research is a methodology, with an accepted epistemology, in practice action researchers may work carrying a mix of positivisit, interpretive and specifically pragmatic epistemological assumptions.

If taking a positivist (or technical) approach, the researcher might be focused on uncovering cause and effect types of associations. For example what are the causes of low engagement in reading and what has worked to address them in this study. Such a researcher will be at home in using terms such as validity to discuss the fit, or lack of fit, between their interpretation of the data and the data themselves. Depending on context they might want to discuss aspects of their research in terms of the validity of the ‘constructs’ such as engagement, achievement, collaboration they are measuring, and feel that ecological validity and external validity are meaningful terms.

If taking a more interpretivist approach the researcher may want instead to use a term such as trustworthiness. A trustworthy account is worth paying attention to (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Trustworthiness can be established through the marshalling of evidence. In particular a trustworthy account is one that is credible, transferable, dependable and confirmable. These terms are capable of varying interpretation but confirmability is generally taken as a measure of how well the findings are supported by the data. This may be demonstrated, for example, by the use of member checking, peer review and participant validation. Credibility is strongly related to confirmability, for example credibility is enhanced if the researcher has had prolonged engagement with participants. Transferability refers to the degree to which the findings of one’s inquiry can apply beyond the bounds of the project and may be undertaken through comparison with other studies. Dependability considers the process of data collection, data analysis, and theory generation and is often evidenced by an ‘audit trail’. A trustworthy account is more likely to engage in what different parties think is happening rather than to present a cause and effect style analysis of what is happening; for example the action researcher might uncover what do different parties think contributes to raising achievement in particular circumstances rather than what causes achievement to rise.

Many action research live comfortably with the idea of trustworthiness but more distinctive approaches to evaluation have been put forward. One influential view is that of Elliot who argues for, as expected, theoretical and methodological robustness but also more 'emic' or applied criteria such as value-for-use and building capacity (Elliot,2007). Winter (1989), in considering the reporting of action research, suggests that accounts should demonstrate ‘reflexive and dialetic’ critique; should provide a collaborative resource; show risk taking; and offer a commitment to both pluralism and transformation of practice. Both Elliot and Winter are saying if action research is about action, then quality criteria have to consider the impact of the action research. However this should be done by setting out how judgement of action are reached, and show aware that other outcomes and interpretations are possible. Both Elliot and Winter have a concern for the interconnectedness of action researcher reporting: does the researcher fairly reflect the views of those they are working with, has the reader been let into process of negotiation.

References

Elliott, J. (2007) ‘Assessing the quality of action research’, Research Papers in Education, 22:2, 229-246.

Winter, R. (1989) Learning From Experience. Principles and practice in action research, Lewes: Falmer Press.