Technical and Practical Forms of Action - Coursework Example

Running Head: TECHNICAL AND PRACTICAL FORMS OF ACTION RESEARCH Technical and Practical Forms of Action Research: Comparison and Contrast Technical and Practical Forms of Action Research: Comparison and Contrasts This paper compares and contrasts various aspects of technical and practical or collaborative forms of action research. The paper is divided into different sections. In the first section, a brief description of the two forms of action research is presented. This is done in light of theoretical formulations that are used to develop different forms of action research. Apart from the two forms, the defining characteristics of the third form of action research, emancipatory action research, is presented. Its relationship with the other two forms is also provided. The second section contains information about the similarities and differences between technical and practical action research. These similarities and differences discussed arise from different aspects such as data collection methods, analysis, primary focus of the research and other aspects of action research involved. In the third section, the strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches to action research are presented. This is based on the critiques provided by different authors on the subject. This is followed by a brief reflection on the planning and risk analysis factors that should be taken into consideration when one is undertaking action research using either of the two forms. Lastly, the paper concludes by an examination of the most appropriate form between the two to be used in the future. In general, it is concluded that practical action research, by virtue of its strengths and weaknesses, is the approach that shall be used to carry out the next research project. Brief Description of Technical and Practical Action Research Action research can be divided into three different forms, all of them varying in terms of their primary nature, goals and results of the research (Berg, 2001, cited by Newton & Burgess, 2008, p. 21). The technical or scientific action research seeks to test how practical specific theories are in particular situations. In essence, the research is knowledge-generating in nature in that it depends on already formulated theories to develop particular intervention strategies. The second approach, the practical or collaborative action research, is used to improve overall service and practice within social organisations (Newton & Burgess, 2008, p. 24). This is because the research entails a careful study of different phenomena within an organisation to develop means of improving the situation. The research takes into account the collaborative effort of the researcher and the practitioners in its process. The third form of action research is the emancipatory or critical action research (Munn-Giddings & Winter, 2013, p. 154). This form of action research develops from the practical or collaborative one in that it seeks to enhance how practitioners understand primary problems in their social contexts by improving their collective consciousness (McNiff, 2012, p. 59). In general, all forms of action research take place in several distinct phases and processes. According to Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, cited by Altrichter, Kemmis, McTaggart and Zuber-Skerrit, 2002, p. 130), the action research process is made up of the following phases: planning, acting, observing and reflecting. These phases take place in a spiral network of the research process in which there is a complex interrelationship between the different phases. In practice, action research takes place in four distinct steps (Perry & Gummesson, 2004, p. 311). The first one is diagnosing during which a problem that is to be solved is identified and defined. In the second phase, all alternative courses of action to solve the identified problem are identified (Tomal, 2010, p. 190). This is followed by the third phase in which a course of action to be followed is selected. The consequences of the selected course of action are evaluated during the next stage. From the evaluation, specific and general solutions to the identified problem are selected. Comparison and Contrast of Methods of Data Collection and Analysis Used There are several differences and similarities between collaborative and technical action research. These differences and similarities are seen in the methodologies used, data collection methods utilised and analysis tools used in the different forms of research. To begin with, technical action research and collaborative action research differ in their primary purposes. For technical action research, focus in on discovering particular laws and how they underlie and govern particular realities (Kember, 2000, p. 112). In technical action research, the primary role of the researcher is to investigate issues that have been raised by other researchers about which the practitioners are not concerned (Burns, 2007, p. 16). Because of this, technical research produces none or little effect on the actions and belief systems of the participants in the research. This is fundamentally different from what forms the primary focus of collaborative or practical form of action research. In this form, the research is focused on providing a comprehensive explanation of phenomena that occur as well as evaluating the meaning that people attach to the different phenomena (Burns, 2007, p. 17). As well, unlike technical action research, collaborative research entails involvement of both the facilitators and the practitioners in the process of investigating a problem that is common to both groups (Hinchey, 2008, p. 36). This means that the collaborative form of research is characterised by being conducted by stakeholder groups within the context of social organisations with a practical orientation towards solving particular problems. The second difference between technical and collaborative action research arises in the way both forms treat validity in the process of the research. Essentially, there are two primary forms of validity: primary and secondary. Primary validity seeks to establish the extent to which the primary goal of the research has been accomplished (McTaggart, 2000, p. 7). On the other hand, secondary validity is used to evaluate whether the research falls within the domain of a particular social context. Whereas technical action research, which is knowledge-generating in nature depends on outcome and process validity as the primary way of ensuring the overall validity of the research, practical or collaborative action research depends on catalytic and outcome validity as a means of providing primary validity for the entire research process (Kyro, 2004, p. 59). Additionally, the two modes of action research differ in terms of what is used to determine their secondary validity. Technical action research uses democratic and catalytic validities to determine whether the research falls within specific social contexts (Kember, 2000, p. 113). This is different from what is used in a collaborative or practical research mode. In this form of action research, establishing secondary validity of the research project depends on process democratic validity. Another difference between the two approaches to action research is seen in terms of the type of knowledge produced and the nature of reality when each of the approaches is employed. Essentially, since technical action research seeks to develop solutions to a well defined problem, the type of knowledge produced is deductive and predictive in nature (Manfra, 2009, p. 35). As such, the aim of data analysis is to produce deductive and predictable knowledge that adds to the already existing body of knowledge. In addition, technical research takes place within a reality framework that can be described as being single and measurable. This is different from what takes place in a practical or collaborative action research. In such a case, the research not only takes place within a multiple and holistic framework but also seeks to produce a descriptive type of knowledge (Hinchey, 2008, p. 37). To accomplish this, collaborative action research depends on mutual understanding and integrated relationship between the researchers and the practitioners. In general, both technical action research and collaborative action research share the same methods of collecting data. These methods, which are derived within the contexts of social organisations, involve the following: interviews, surveys, flow charts and observations. In using these tools to collect data, both technical action research and collaborative action research employ different strategies. For instance, the use of interviews requires that records of such meetings and interviews be kept. This way, the researchers are able to objectively re-examine the responses of the respondents in the process (Mumford, 2001, p. 18). Also, both forms of technical research entail the use of observation notes of meetings and other checklists as sources of data. This may also include written descriptions of meetings and interviews with the participants in the research. There is similarity between the two forms of action research in terms of the way data analysis is treated. In both forms, the data used follows the plans for the design of the experiments and are thus formulated to represent the questions used in the research (Mumford, 2001, p. 19). As such, the data used in both forms of action research is similar in that it is part of the living experiences that are being investigated in the research. This is because the data that are used are a constructed representation of the social organisation in which the research is taking place. This close relationship between data and the experiences being evaluated in the research bears a direct effect on how data analysis is done. In both forms of action research, data analysis is done through the perceptions of the researchers and practitioners (Brennan & Noffke, 2009, p. 433). Strengths and Weaknesses of Technical and Practical Action Research There are several strengths and weaknesses associated with collaborative or practical action research. To start with, collaborative research offers the participants an opportunity to develop both personally and professionally (Brown, 2007, p. 488). Since participation in the process of collaborative research improves the thinking and communication skills of the researchers, the overall positive attitudes of the participants towards change and professional development are enhanced. Moreover, collaborative action research arises from its nature which entails active participation of different participants in the research process. As such, collaborative research is democratic in practice in that members not only share power but also make equal contribution to the way the results of the research are interpreted (Brown, 2007, p. 489). Another advantage associated with practical or collaborative action research is that it enhances individual efforts towards development. Because many activities in collaborative research are voluntary and self-initiated in nature, individual participation and collaboration enhances the individual efforts in participating in organisational projects. On the other hand, one weakness of using practical action research arises from its highly contextualised nature. Since it focuses on finding and implementing solutions within the context of a specific social organisation, it is difficult to generalise the findings and interpretations of the research to other situations or members who share different values (Lodico, Spaulding & Voegtle, 2010, n.pag). One disadvantage that technical action research presents to the researcher is a short-lived period of change for the project. This is in contrast with what the situation is in practical action research. In the latter approach, the change duration is longer and depends on how well individuals involved in the project internalise the improvements to their practice that has been developed over the course of the project (McTaggart, 2000, p. 9). Also, although technical action research presents the advantage of explaining events in actual causes and effects terms, its dependence on the expert knowledge of the researcher may be a disadvantage. This true when, compared with practical action research in which there is a collaborative interrelationship between the researchers and practitioners, technical research leads to separate relationship between the researcher and the practitioners. The Need for Planning and Risk Analysis in Technical and Practical Action Research The need for planning and risk analysis in both forms of action research entails a number of different issues which should be taken into consideration by the researcher. These cover different types of issues such as ethical, quality and accountability. To begin with, there are several ethical considerations which are important in the process of carrying out an action research. For instance, there is need for the researcher to take into account the needs of confidentiality and anonymity in the course of the action research process. This is important for researchers in the action research since they are the researchers as well as authors of the results of the research (Sandretto, 2007, p. 5). Another ethical issue that should be taken into consideration when conducting action research is the need to protect the participants in the research from potential harm (Sandretto, 2007, p. 6). Essentially, participants in action research may be exposed to harm in two different ways: either from their actual participation in the research or from dissemination of the findings of the research in which they participated. Because of this, there is need for collaborative research to avoid practices and processes that may expose participants to harm. Such harm usually occurs in the form of negative social relations resulting from the way data and information in the research is analysed and presented. Another issue that needs to be taken into consideration when planning an action research project is accountability (Lodico et al., 2010, n.pag). This is manifested in several ways. For instance, there is need for the researcher to be accountable not only to all individuals who are involved in the research but also to those individuals who trust the results and interpretations of the research. As well, the issue of accountability covers both the process of the research and the findings of the research. What this means is that researchers in an action research process are concerned with how to ensure that both the process and the results meet accountability standards for both participants and users of results in a research process. There is also the need to address issues to do with overall validity in the course of planning and analysing potential risks in action research. Although validity is generally associated with quantitative research processes which make an extensive use of statistical data, the issue is still central in the process of action research (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011, p. 91). This is so because validity is important in action research as a means of providing critical answers to questions about the data in the results (Dick 2002, p. 264). These questions involve different aspect of the data like its constitution, reasons for its collection and how the process of collection was carried out. Another way in which validity is a necessary part of action research is in providing explanations about interventions or actions developed in a research (Lodico et al., 2010, n.pag). For a research to be considered valid there is need for the researchers to provide information about why particular actions work in a particular social situation. There are several issues to be considered when planning for any form of action research. What is important is that these planning issues are closely connected to the overall risk analysis used in the research process. Many of the planning issues in action research are associated with different stages and processes involved in different forms of action research. For instance, the length of time required for collecting data should be considered (Tomal, 2010, p. 124). Additionally, planning should identify places where collaboration will take place in the course of the research. Thirdly, adequate plans should be made about methods that need to be used to verify the validity of the findings as well as the quality of the data used in the research. All these issues are necessary to ensure that the research meets expectations of the participants and the stakeholders in terms of validity, quality and ethical considerations. Conclusion In conclusion, both technical or scientific and participatory or collaborative forms of action research share several similarities. To begin with, both forms of action research take place within the same framework that defines action research. This entails several interrelated phases such as problem identification, reflection on possible alternatives, implementation of particular courses of action, and final evaluation of the results. On the other hand, the two forms of action research are different in terms of their primary purposes, relationship between the researcher and the participants and the nature of knowledge produced as the end product. In all these, it can be seen that although technical and action research are different in terms of purpose and several other aspects, the two forms of action research share the same methods of collecting and analysing data. From the different strengths and weaknesses of the two forms, it can be concluded that practical or collaborative action research is the most appropriate form of action research to be used in the research project to be carried out in the future. Since its purpose is improving the professionalism and service delivery of practitioners among other issues, this is the approach that is better placed be used in the research project. References Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerrit, O. (2002). The concept of action research. The Learning Organization, 9(3), 125–131. Brennan, M., & Noffke, S. E. (2009). Social-political theory in working with teachers for social justice schooling. In S.E. Noffke & B. Somekh (eds), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 432–441). London: SAGE. Brown, D. S. (2007). Action research and educational psychology. In J. L. Kincheloe & R. A. Horn (eds), The Praeger handbook of education and psychology (pp. 485–496). Westport: Greenwood Publishing. Burns, D. (2007). Systemic action research: A strategy for whole system change. Bristol: The Policy Press. Dick, B. (2002). Postgraduate programs using action research. The Learning Organization, 9(4), 159–170. Hinchey, P. H. (2008). Action research primer. New York: Peter Lang. Kember, D. (2000). Action learning and action research: Improving the quality of teaching and learning. London: Psychology Press. Kyro, P. (2004). Benchmarking as an action research process. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(1), 52 – 73. Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. Mason: John Wiley & Sons. Manfra, M. M. (2009). Action research: Exploring the theoretical divide between practical and critical approaches. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 3(1), 32–45. McNiff, J. (2012). Action research for teachers: A practical guide. New York: David Fulton. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2011). All you need to know about action research. New York: SAGE Publications. McTaggart, R. (2000). Reading the collection. In R. McTaggart (ed). Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences (pp. 1-24). Albany: State University of New York Press. Mumford, E. (2001). Advice for an action researcher. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 12–27. Munn-Giddings, C., & Winter, R. (2013). A handbook for action research in health and social care. New York: Routledge. Newton, P., & Burgess, D. (2008). Exploring types of educational action research: Implications for research validity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4), 18–30. Perry, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Action research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 38(3), 310–320. Sandretto, S. (2007). Action research for social justice. Retrieved 13 March 2014, from http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/pages/action-research.pdf Tomal, D. R. (2010). Action research for educators. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield. Read More