ACTION RESEARCH META-ANALYSIS

REPORT FROM FIRST 50 ARTICLES

Where is the Action in Action Research? By E. Alana James, Ed.D.

ACTION + RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

Scope

Methodology

FindingsConclusion

Limitations

Contributions

THE META-ANALYSIS CONTINUUMS

How much action is there in the action of AR?

Kemmis admonitions (2006)

Technique/Life Enhancing

Efficiency/Critical View

Improving policy /Creating Flexible Democracy

Professional / Community vision

Lone researchers/ Community of AR

Chasing our own tails or producing pragmatic outcomes?

BASICS

Purpose: to investigate 50 years of AR and rank results

Scope as of May 2011: 50 articles

Methodology: Meta-analysis/ranking against standards of AR - Kemmis, Schon, & James

Process/Findings/Conclusions covered here

Limitations: Subjectivity, Only 4 months and 50 articles covered

Contributions: AR as a mature methodology can now consider our contribution to the world

MY DISCOVERY PROCESS

Assurance of action in early writings

Bridget Somekh’s comment at CARN

Reflective vs Reflexive practitioner – Cunliffe

Develop ways and means to question my own behavior.

Open to my own fallibility

What deeper insights are available?

Ask how the deeper part of my nature was/and can be more apparent?

Does my behavior model the norms I want to support?

MEASURABLE ACTION

Find and read a growing number of AR articles in the sub categories of industry, whether they were published in AR journals, and across methodological difference

Subjectively measure them by placing them on a 3 point scale that mirrored the continuums set up by Kemmis.

Also tail chasers /my desire to see action-best practices.

Reporting as of May/June 2011 on the first 50

QUESTIONS/FINDINGS.1

To what extent do AR publications have more tail chasers?

out of the 21 considered tail chasers (almost half) 8 were in AR journals or 38% as compared to an average of 28% overall were in AR journals

It appears that AR journals are more likely to publish tail chasers but that other types of journals do as well.

In the reverse, out of the 11 that were 2.5 or 3 and therefore outcome oriented on the pragmatic scale only 1 was published in an AR journal or 9%

QUESTIONS/FINDINGS.2

Is there a correlation between best

practices and clarity of action?

Yes – an incredibly strong correlation exists all

the way through from 0-3

23 (46%) agree exactly or with a variance of .5

or less

15 (30%) are only a point apart and of those

rated on both scales only 5 (10%) vary more

than 1 point

QUESTIONS/FINDINGS.3

Do any of the Kemmis continuums seem to correlate?

LoneResearcher/Community/ARCommunity and Professionalism/Community Vision are very close with 33 (66%) in exact agreement or less than 1 difference between them, and only 4 (8%) had more than 1 point between them

Technique/LifeEnhancing correlates with Improving Efficiency/Critical View With 25 (50%) and exact match or less than 1 difference between them, an only 8 (16%) that had a more than 1 point difference

CONCLUSIONS: 1ST & FOR A SMALL STUDY

Call for action to AR journals-take these data and the meta-analysis seriously -editorial boards if we advance AR more by publishing clear actions and measurable results that result in best practices?

Call for action to those doing AR to pay attention to these results, place their study consciously on these continuum and move toward increased evidence of AR's effect on Democracy, Community vision, and building an AR community across silos

AR researchers should consider whether and to what extent they want their work to strive for the Kemmisemancipatory goals – Friere, and Kemmis, other writers are widely quoted, but are they widely emulated?

QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

Are some industries more likely to be in one place on the continuums than others?

What can be said about the reality that emerges in the loop of relations between the edges of each continuum?

How will the outcomes or inferences change as I add: more from each category, older research, etc.

How will more articles reviewed in public administration change the perspective of that set of literature?

DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING: CUNLIFFE’S

REFLEXIVITY (AUG 2004)

Develop ways and means to question my own behavior, question my emotional intelligence, open to my own fallibility

Accidently did the same article twice – many ranked the same but a couple 1 point off of each other

Ask how the deeper part of my nature was/and can be more apparent?

Self questioning about who am I to call an article a tail chaser/

Yet a deeper part of my nature is to call a spade a spade and see if an unpopular truth surfaces improvement

DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING: CUNLIFFE’S

REFLEXIVITY

What deeper insights are available? Morin (1977) as discussed in Bataille, M., & Clanet, C. (1981).

“In order to explain a complex phenomenon, it is not enough to associate

opposing notions in a concurrent and complementary way, linking them in the

abstract by a “master word”:dialectic. It is essential to define the association

of opposites within a system of loops such as theory – practice, action –

thought, subject – object, etc). Reality emerges in the loop of relations

between the edges.” –

Higher ground past the judgment of who did what

on what continuum and into a vision of its long term

importance

REFLEXION

Ask how the deeper part of my nature was/and can be more apparent? Since I consider the deepest part of my nature loving and

supportive this question reads how can my work on the meta-analysis be used for loving support of the people doing AR and to make AR better in the world? Requires not a muck-raking attitude but one of questioning support.

Does my behavior model the norms I want to create: When I rank my own AR I see that it is strong in action

and outcome, emergent in reflexion and humanity.

I also see that I am young in the understanding of paradox and looking forward to the ah ha moments that point to the reality that emerges in the loop of relations between the edges.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Is a meta-analysis an action?

By my own definition of action- it would rank a 2 or halfway: ….. “an action is defined by concrete activity aimed at a particular outcome.” By this definition much of AR as reported does not count because they report on project planning, meetings, or trainings which to me are indirect actions at best

Anyone want to work with me on this project?

It has the chance to help AR develop and mature in the world of research.

REFERENCES Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching and research. Academy of Management Learning

and Education 1(2), 206.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education,

28(4), 407-426.

James, E. A. (2006). A study of PAR for educators developing new practise in areas of educational

disadvantage. Educational Action Research, 14(4).

James, E. A., Milenkiewicz, M., & Bucknam, A. (2008). Participatory action research: Data driven

decision making for educational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

James, E. A., Slater, T., & Bucknam, A. (2012). Action research for business, non-profits and public

administration : A tool for complex times. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publishing.

Kemmis, S. (2006). Participatory action research and the public sphere. Educational Action Research,

14(4), 459-476.

Morin (1977) as discussed in Bataille, M., & Clanet, C. (1981). Elements contributing to a theory and a

methodology of action research in education. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 4

(1981), 271-291.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Free e-book on action research for

registering at:

http://www.ar4everything.com

Email: alana@ealanajames.com

Sage:

http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235125