2.2 Disrupting the status quo: the action research dissertation as  (Page 6/13)

The quality of action research depends on a number of factors. Most authors concur with Bradbury and Reason (2001), who offer the following choice-points and questions to guide quality.

Is the action research: Explicit in developing a praxis of relational-participation? Guided by reflexive concern for practical outcomes? Inclusive of a plurality of knowing?….Worthy of the term significant? Emerging towards a new and enduring infrastructure? (p. 454)

One of the most important standards of quality is that the research must be practical. As will be discussed below, action research differs from basic research in precisely that respect. Moreover, there must be some intervention or action that occurs during the study, thus differentiating action research from evaluation or program evaluation, which usually takes place only after some action has been taken. Action researchers are interested in understanding as fully as possible what precedes action in the organizational setting to solve a particular problem with which organizational members are dealing, and what happens as a result of the action—and they should have some role in determining what intervention is decided upon. The intervention is shaped by those who are most affected by the issue under investigation. Unlike the experimental method in the positivist or post-positivist paradigm, the intervention is not designed for one group in comparison to another or other groups. There is no attempt to draw conclusions based on the concept of a“treatment.”Instead, as the above standards suggest, the emphasis is on the movement towards a workable solution that changes the activities or the infrastructure of the unit being studied. The study encompasses all the phases of problem definition, planning for action, taking action and evaluating the action.

Herr and Anderson, (2005) stress the importance of process validity. The way problems are framed and solved in the organization or unit should encourage the ongoing learning of the individual or the system. If the process is only partly inclusive of relevant stakeholders, for instance, the solutions will likely reinforce the conditions that led to the emergence of the problem in the first place. Underlying assumptions behind problem identification also need examination. The authors make the point that relationship building is a key element of the action research process and that democratic opportunities for input and critical analysis play an important role in the possible successful outcomes of the activity. Peer review of action research is another form of what Herr and Anderson call dialogic validity. There are many ways to achieve this. The action research itself can be a collaborative inquiry that is conducted with others throughout. This ensures multiple perspectives and a plurality of knowing. Action researchers can also provide peer review for each other to provide opportunities for critical and reflective dialogue.

Underlying all these criteria and standards is the belief that action research must be based on a sound and appropriate research methodology. Action researchers operate within a critical perspective grounded in the understanding that the action that is involved in some way transforms practice in the organization. This seems most appropriate for the quality educational leadership practitioner who needs to facilitate new practices and policies designed to disrupt the status quo to achieve greater equity in educational outcomes for students.