Qualitative
action research: improving
the rigour and economy 1
This is a resource
file which supports the regular public program "areol" (action
research and evaluation on line) offered twice a year beginning
in mid-February and mid-July. For details email Bob
Dick bdick@scu.edu.au
or bd@uq.net.au
...
in which I offer some suggestions about ways in which action
research can be made more attractive to practitioners by
adopting methods for improving both the rigour and the economy
in conducting and reporting their studies
Contents
Abstract.
In many of its common forms, action research is time-consuming
and complex both to conduct and to report. This is a
disincentive to its wider use by practitioners and
others. It can be remedied by the deliberate use of
dialectic methods -- multiple data sources, and constant effort
to test apparent agreements and emerging interpretations.
If you do this at all phases of the action research you can
increase efficiency at the same time that you improve the
rigour of your study.
Action
and research
As its name implies,
action research can be viewed as having two main outcomes --
action and research. It therefore requires two sets of
procedures, one to achieve each of the outcomes. In terms of
the distinction between content and process, these are both
instances of process.
(Content consists of the
"what": the data. Process consists of the "how": for example
the processes for participation or for data
collection.)
The first set of
procedures might be called the intervention methodology. Its
eventual function is to bring about future change. In the
short term, therefore, its key function is to involve those who
are most affected by the change in a way that secures their
commitment.
The second set of
procedures might be called the research methodology. It has
the task of adding to understanding. In other words, it
produces research outcomes. This it does by generating valid
data in a way that casts light upon the functioning of the client
system or the action research process itself, or both.
This, I think, is
consistent with the common use of the term (for example see most
of the authors in Zuber-Skerritt, 1991). Like Michael,
Luthans, Odiorne & Burke (1981) some would limit the use of
the term "action research" to participative methods. That is
the emphasis in this paper, though I would be reluctant to adopt
participation as a necessary defining characteristic.
In most formulations
including the present one action research is also explicitly
cyclic in application. Carr and Kemmis (1986) for example
conceive each action research cycle as comprising planning,
action, observation and reflection.
Another way of
describing its cyclic nature is as follows. It often begins
with only a rough or fuzzy research question, and perhaps a fuzzy
methodology. It is no surprise, then, that the early cycles
usually yield fuzzy answers. The answers can be used to
refine both questions and methodology, however. The process
and content therefore are successively refined at each
cycle. You are more likely to achieve the action outcomes if
you do this participatively.
For some purposes it is
also useful to distinguish a third component which manages the
content. This might consist of some techniques for data
analysis; or models (such as categorisations or taxonomies) may be
used to make sense of the data. For example in soft systems
methodology (Checkland and Scholes, 1990) the concepts of general
systems theory are used so as to provide the content
description.
As you might expect,
action research activities vary in their emphasis on action or on
research. Some, such as those described in French and Bell
(1990), focus on the action outcomes. Others such as Heller
(1976) clearly favour the research. Whatever the balance,
both can be at least partly achieved.
Further, the action and
the research can enhance one another. This is one of the
advantages of the approach.
My intention here is to
offer ways of increasing the research component in action research
which has change as its primary goal. If this can be done, I
think, that some of the present neglect of action research can be
overcome. Practitioners, who seem to do very little
research, would find it more rewarding. Those of us who work
as consultants or practitioners might find it easier to publish
the results of our work.
The
strange neglect of action research
A tradition going back
to Kurt Lewin (1946, 1951) and perhaps beyond (see French and
Bell, 1990) hasn't lead to widespread use of action
research. Some pockets of education have provided a fertile
ground, (e.g. in Australia, Carr and Kemmis, 1986, Kemmis
and McTaggart, 1988). In many other disciplines it has gone
almost unnoticed. However, in recent years the health
sciences have made more use of it. Nursing research using an
action research approach is becoming common.
Although perhaps an
extreme example, my own discipline of psychology will serve as an
illustration. Even at a 1986 conference with the theme
"Bridging the gap between theory, research and practice", action
research barely gained a mention despite its obvious potential to
bridge the gap.
The teaching of
psychology in universities makes the point as clearly. Most
psychology departments are engaged in practitioner training, yet
action research rarely forms even a small part of the
syllabus.
North American evidence
is that conventional research teaching does not result in
practitioners who do, or even read, research (Barlow, Hayes &
Nelson, 1984). We now know (Martin, 1989) that it is little
different here in Australia.
On the other hand,
action research appears particularly suited to practitioner
training. How is one to explain the neglect?
Part of the reason is no
doubt to be found in the traditionalism of our universities.
But I think there is a more compelling reason for action research
being a fringe methodology. Its relative lack of economy in
both conduct and reporting is a disincentive. So is its
perceived lack of rigour. If these could be improved there
might be more interest among practitioners and
practitioner-academics in using
it.
Gaining
a focus: dialectic
At the heart of the
approach I advocate is a notion of dialectic. By this I mean
something very similar to what Jick (1979) and others call
triangulation, though more general. Its effectiveness
depends upon using brief and therefore multiple action research
cycles (often by having cycles within cycles). At each cycle
you pursue multiple sources of information.
You can collect these in
several ways, including different methods (that is,
"triangulation" as the term is often used), different informants,
different researchers, overlapping data from a single informant,
and so on.
Within each cycle, you
limit your attention to agreements and disagreements within the
two or more data sets (Figure 1). Between cycles, you seek
data which challenge or disconfirm the interpretation already
reached. Each cycle begins by refining the questions and the
methodology in the light of the previous cycle.
You collect
multiple data sets. You then interpret the data by focussing
on the agreement and disagreements within the data and comparing
this to your prior interpretation. You will see (below) that
this provides the economy during the conduct of the study.
It also facilitates later economy in
reporting.
Economy
in conduct
The economy in the
conduct of this style of research is derived from a number of
sources, two in particular.
First, the
interpretation takes place gradually. It converges towards a
final interpretation over the multiple cycles. There is less
need, therefore, to record the copious amounts of data that some
qualitative methods require. At each cycle you record only
the data directly relevant to your current
interpretation.
Second, you use the
multiple sources of information to select the data to be
recorded. You focus on agreements and disagreements and
ignore the more idiosyncratic data in any data set.
Space limitations hinder
me from giving more detail. In essence, during the
interpretation phase of each cycle you develop more specific
questions to test any emerging agreement and to explain any
emerging disagreement. You can find a more extensive
discussion in my Rigour without numbers (Dick, 1999), which
explains the source of the rigour in such an approach.
You will note, too, that
your interpretations of the data emerge slowly and are constantly
tested. For the participants this increases the credibility
of the information, especially if you use highly participative
approaches. As researcher, you can have more faith in the
research outcomes.
Models such as those of
action theories (Argyris, Putnam and Smith, 1985)) or systems
theory can be used, but are not necessary. If you prefer,
you can derive the concepts and models from the data, as in
grounded research (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
You don't need a
research question or hypothesis at the start of the study beyond a
wish to know how to improve the situation. A general action
research model such as this can therefore be used as a formative
evaluation process (such as the one Adelle Bish and I reported at
the conference on reflective practices). 2
So there is economy and
rigour for both the action methodology and the research
methodology.
Provided the process is
well managed, for instance by using processes similar to conflict
resolution, the various participants educate each other. The
final plans for change can be more consensual, and based on better
information.
At the same time, the
research methodology is strengthened and made efficient because of
the increasing detail of the information and its careful
interpretation. In the early stages the questions and
answers are general. In pursuing the disagreements and
testing the agreements (Dick, 1990) the research becomes quite
focussed. You sacrifice some of the richness of some
approaches but gain substantial economies, and precision, in
repayment.
Economy
in reporting
I have examined or
otherwise read some distressingly long action research reports on
occasion. Redundancy is often high. The amount of data
reported is often massive. To make matters worse, if you
don't use traditional methodologies you have to take more care to
justify your approach.
Reducing the amount of
data to be reported would often help. So would any savings
in the blow-by-blow description of the methodology. If you
report only the conclusions the reader is unable to verify your
interpretation or check its adequacy. So how can you be
economical?
The answer is to be
found, first, in being clear what the report is about.
During the conduct of the study the use of dialectic allows the
interpretation to emerge gradually and to increase in
precision. It is therefore easier for you to know what
special contribution the report makes to knowledge or
understanding. This may be knowledge about the methodology
or the client system or occasionally both.
The contribution guides
you in deciding the conclusions. The conclusions in turn
become the organising principle around which you can construct
your report. In general, you report only the conclusions and
the methodology and evidence relevant to those
conclusions.
Your methodological
description need provide only enough detail for someone else to
replicate the essential features. The directly relevant
information consists of the information within the dialectic --
that is, the agreements and disagreements relevant to the
particular conclusion.
Conclusions
In summary, action
research can be conducted and reported more economically without
sacrificing rigour. In fact, the rigour can be
enhanced. The use of triangulation or other dialectic
approaches gives better data for intervention and for
understanding as well as allowing efficiency to be improved.
Dialectic also provides the economy in reporting. You can
focus on the contribution to understanding which the study makes,
and report only the conclusions, the dialectic and the methodology
which relates directly to it.
Notes
- A revision of a
conference paper in which some methods are offered for
improving both the rigour and the economy of qualitative
research in general, and action research in particular.
Modified from a paper prepared for the Second world Congress on
Action Learning, University of Queensland, Australia
1992. This earlier paper is available as Qualitative
action research: improving the rigour and economy. In
Christine S. Bruce and Anne L. Russell, eds.,
Transforming tomorrow today: 2nd World Congress on Action
Learning. Brisbane: Action Learning, Action Research and
Process Management Association.
[ back ]
- Briefly, the
evaluation began in a very open-ended fashion. In
individual and group interviews, people were encouraged to talk
about the class. "Tell me about the
class...". [ back ]
References
Argyris, C., Putnam, R.,
& Smith, D.McL. (1985) Action science: concepts,
methods and skills for research and intervention. San
Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass.
Barlow, D.H., Hayes,
S.C., & Nelson, R.O. (1984) The scientist
practitioner: research and accountability in clinical and
educational settings. New York: Pergamon.
Bish, A. &
Dick, B. (1992) Reflection for everyone: catering for
individual differences. Paper presented at the
Reflective Practice in Higher Education Conference, Brisbane, July
1992.
Carr, W. &
Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming critical: education knowledge
and action research. London: Falmer Press.
Checkland, P.
& Scholes, J. (1990) Soft systems methodology in
action. Chichester: Wiley.
Dick, B. (1999)
Rigour without numbers: the potential of dialectical processes
as qualitative research tools, second edition. Brisbane:
Interchange.
French, W. &
Bell, C.H. (1990) Organisation development: behavioural
science interventions for organisational improvement, fourth
edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heller, F.A.
(1976) Group feedback analysis as a method of action
research. In AW Clark, Experimenting with organisational
life. New York: Plenum.
Jick, T.D. (1979)
Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in
action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
602-611.
Kemmis, S. &
McTaggart, R., eds. (1988) The action research
planner, third edition. Victoria: Deakin
University.
Lewin, K. (1946)
Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social
Issues, 2, 34-46.
Lewin, K. (1951)
Field theory in social science. New York:
Harper.
Martin, P.R.
(1989) The scientist practitioner model and clinical psychology:
time for change? Australian Psychologist, 24(1),
71-92.
Michael, S.R., Luthans,
F., Odiorne, G. & Burke, W.W. (1981) Techniques
of organisational change. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Strauss, A. and
Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research:
grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Zuber-Skerritt, O.,
ed. (1991) Action research for change and
development. Aldershot: Gower.
_____
Copyright (c) Bob Dick
1992-2005. This document may be copied if it is not included
in documents sold at a profit, and this and the following notice
are included.
This document can be
cited as follows:
Dick, B. (1999)
Qualitative action research: improving the rigour and economy
[On line]. Available at
http://www.uq.net.au/action_research/arp/rigour2.html
