Promoting Change through Action Research

This e-book was made available by Sense Publishers to the authors and editors of this book, the series editor and the members of the editorial board. Unauthorized distribution will be prosecuted.

Franz Rauch, Angela Schuster, Thomas Stern, Maria Pribila Institute of Instructional and School Development, University of Klagenfurt, Austria and

Andrew Townsend (Eds.) School of Education, University of Nottingham, UK

ISBN 978-94-6209-801-5

SensePublishers

DIVS

Franz Rauch, Angela Schuster, Thomas Stern, Maria Pribila and Andrew Townsend (Eds.)

“Bringing a different world into existence – Action Research as a trigger for innovations” was the overarching theme and vision of the international CARN Conference 2011 in Vienna. The chapters in this book are drawn mainly from conference contributions. The authors share practical knowledge which has arisen from their work, and reflect on development processes in schools, in teacher education and professional development, social work, social pedagogy, health care and community development. This book offers what some critics believe has been missing in recent action research literature, namely first person accounts of action researchers who endeavour to change working conditions and social relations in their environment through the conduct of action research. This book is also distinguished by assembling contributions from people who are linking action research to a broad diversity of differing contexts, and who are exploring topics or issues across various applications of action research.

Promoting Change through Action Research


Spine 13.665 mm

Promoting Change through Action Research Franz Rauch, Angela Schuster, Thomas Stern, Maria Pribila and Andrew Townsend (Eds.)






Edited by Franz Rauch Angela Schuster Thomas Stern Maria Pribila Institute of Instructional and School Development, University of Klagenfurt, Austria and Andrew Townsend School of Education, University of Nottingham, UK


A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6209-801-5 (paperback) ISBN: 978-94-6209-802-2 (hardback) ISBN: 978-94-6209-803-9 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers, P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands https://www.sensepublishers.com/

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2014 Sense Publishers No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.


CONTENTS


1

Weaving the Threads of Practice and Research Andrew Townsend

7

Inclusive Sports in Styrian Schools Heinz Tippl

23

Practitioner Collaboration at a Grade Four Mathematics Classroom Sharada Gade

35

Using Drawing Images in Educational Research Gwadabe Kurawa & Garba Azare

49

Quality Criteria for Schools Focussing on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Christine Lechner & Franz Rauch Utilizing Action Research for Learning Process Skills and Mindsets Barbara Lesjak Making a Difference in Changing Times – The Value of Research in Challenging Traditional Training Practice and Supporting Collaborative Learning Alison Cutler Synergistic Cooperation of School-Based Action Research with University-Based Didactic Investigations Elisabeth Langer, Leopold Mathelitsch & Veronika Rechberger What Does It Mean to be a Teacher Researcher? A Turkish Perspective Irem Kizilaslan Changing Teaching Practice Using Information and Communication Technology Geitza Rebolledo, Violeta Requena & Edward Meléndez The Reflective Perspective of Narrative in Educational Action Research Vassilis Tsafos

v

65 77

87

101 109

117 135


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Participatory Research in Social Work Maria Anastasiadis, Arno Heimgartner, Helga Kittl-Satran & Michael Wrentschur Dialogical Participatory Action Research in Social Work Using Delta-Reflecting Teams Ann-Margreth E. Olsson

147

163

Participatory Research in the Field of Social Pedagogy in Croatia Ivana Jeđud Borić & Anja Mirosavljević

173

Creating a Community of Reflective Practice Cathy Sharp

193

Engaging with the Community to Enhance Primary Health Care Vivian R. Ramsden, Shari Mckay, Shirley Bighead, Gail Boucher, Carrie Bourassa, Peter Butt, Andrea Clinton, Jackie Crowe, Fred Felix, Derek Jorgenson, Karen Larocque, Nora Mckee, Irene Nketia, Norma Rabbitskin, Ella Thunderchild & Tara Turner, Conjointly with Members of the Communities

207

Appraising Brazilian Deprived Communities’ Capitals for Planning an Action Research Project Margareth Santos Zanchetta, Bukola Salami, Wilson Galhego Garcia, Emily Belita, Thiago de Souza, Rodrigo Caldas & Edwaldo Costa

vi

235


PROMOTING CHANGE THROUGH ACTION RESEARCH International Case Studies in Education, Social Work, Health Care and Community Development

PROMOTING CHANGE THROUGH ACTION RESEARCH: EDITORIAL

“Bringing a different world into existence – Action Research as a trigger for innovations” was the overarching theme and vision of the international CARN Conference 2011 in Vienna. The chapters in this book are principally drawn from contributions to this 2011 conference. These present narratives of the conduct of action research from a range of different settings. The authors in these texts share practical knowledge which has arisen from their work, and reflect on development processes in schools, in teacher education and professional development, social work, social pedagogy, health care and community development. This book therefore offers what recent action research literature has been criticized for lacking, namely the first person accounts of action researchers who have been endeavoring to change their work and their context through the conduct of action research. This volume does not limit itself to such first person accounts, and we have also assembled contributions from people who, in their chapters, are seeking to set action research in a wider context, who are exploring themes or issues which cross a range of applications of action research or which draw out more generic issues. The introductory chapter by Andy Townsend is one example of a chapter which draws out broader issues. This chapter explores the notion of ‘practice’ in action research from the point of view of practitioner action researchers. In this chapter Townsend argues for greater clarity about how practice and research are related in action research. Whilst action research has many distinctive features, such as reflexivity and change through participation, what really sets it apart from other knowledge generating and change endeavours is the link between research and action. Some applications of action research also explicitly address the notion of ‘practice’ in this research-action relationship. The chapter is based upon practitioners´ own accounts of conducting action research in which the links between practice and research were explored. ACTION RESEARCH IN SCHOOLS

The chapters which follow are grouped into four collections. The first collection explores the conduct of action research in schools. The first chapter in this collection, written by Heinz Tippl, describes, investigates and reflects, through action research projects in Austrian schools, how physical education is used to promote inclusive F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 1–5. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


PROMOTING CHANGE THROUGH ACTION RESEARCH

pedagogy. Sports is shown to be valuable as a means to give all students (including those with special needs) a chance to perform, gain self-confidence and forge the whole group together. Sharada Gade then gives an account of collaboration between a teacher and researcher. This collaboration was focussed on 10-year-old students who learn about measuring in mathematics by working on ‘impossible questions’ like ‘Can you measure age in decimetres?’ or ‘Can you measure (the volume of) milk in minutes?’ This collaboration aims at empowering teachers to become partners in research and researchers to become partners in classroom practice. Their study investigates how their students gain knowledge through discussing and reflecting. In their article, Gwadabe Kurawa and Garba Azare explore the thoughts and feelings of 50 children with social, emotional and behavioural problems by letting them draw aspects of school which they like or dislike and make comments about them in group talks. The authors also reflect about ethical principles of doing research on or with children. They chose to explain to them at length the scope of the research and ask for their and their parents’ consent to take part in this work. TEACHER EDUCATION & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The next collection of chapters explores issues around teacher education and professional development in action research. The first of these, authored by Christine Lechner and Franz Rauch, concerns “Education for Sustainable Development” (ESD). This was an in-service teacher training program for participants of the Austrian “ECOLOG”-school-network. It describes the framework (as initiated by the Educational Ministry) and the concept (ecology as a part of everyday school life) as well as the evaluation of teacher seminars with the goal to outline quality criteria for ESD-schools and put them into practice. Barbara Lesjak’s contribution, which follows, is an essay on the relationships between action research and group dynamics. In this Lesjak draws from the concrete experience of a university course in Austria (called the “learning laboratory”) which combines these differing constructs. This emphasises social learning and collaborative reflection as well as the conviction that the involvement of the researcher/consultant in the researched system is fundamental. Alison Cutler’s chapter addresses with the question: “How can we effectively support professionals to work in a more collaborative manner?” The author contemplates in particular the question about whether collaborative inter-agency learning could support the development of inter-agency working relationships between practitioners working with children, young people and their families. This chapter develops new ideas in the area of inter-agency learning. In particular, it presents a skills, behaviours and knowledge (SBK) model as a method of developing and evaluating the impact of inter-agency learning. Elisabeth Langer, Leopold Mathelitsch & Veronika Rechberger then describe the organizational framework of the Austrian IMST-project and provide further 2



details about two exemplary sub-projects involving science teachers and action research in a Styrian school. The chapter focusses on the relations between science and language. The objective of this work was to raise the level of achievement and of consciousness regarding gender issues. The next chapter is based upon an investigation into teacher students’ opinions about the relevance of a course on qualitative research methods, and in particular action research, which is part of their curriculum at the Izmir University. This chapter, written by Irem Kizilaslan, provides a Turkish perspective on Action Research in education. The article offers insights into a changing educational system, where teacher students are expected to learn about classroom research. Drawing on the title of the conference, “bringing a different educational world into existence”, means searching for new ways to approach classroom teaching by giving students a voice and involving them actively in inquiry. It also means carrying out research about teaching as an innovative way to improve teachers´ practice. This is the foundation of the collaborative action research study presented by Geisha Rebolledo in collaboration with two of her students, Edward Meléndez and Violeta Requena, at the Universidad Pedagógica in Caracas, Venezuela. This research project aims at critically exploring the university’s “curriculum program”, which many students dislike. This work was intended to inspire the students to reflect about their learning, their personal strengths and their professional future; and to develop experimentation through the collaboration of a teacher and two students in an action research project. The final chapter of the teacher develop collection, written by Vassilis Tsafos, offers a philosophical essay in which he compares narrative accounts and action research sharing the “hermeneutical concept” of interpreting pedagogical actions and attempting to attribute meaning to them post-hoc. In this essay both action research and narrations are conceptualized as research paradigms. SOCIAL WORK, SOCIAL PEDAGOGY, HEALTH & CARE

The third collection of chapters addresses issues in the use of Action Research in social work, social pedagogy and health care settings. The first of these, authored by Maria Anastasiadis, Arno Heimgartner, Helga Kittl-Satran and Michael Wrentschur exemplify “participative research in social work” through three quite different projects in Austria. One project investigated school children’s perception of violence by letting them experience abuse in role-playing games and by asking them to list abusive words and ranking them according to their painfulness. The second project, entitled “Forum Theatre”, was based on Augusto Boal’s “Theatre of the Oppressed” as a means to tackle social problems like inequality, unemployment and homelessness creatively by improvising theatrical scenes in the public space, inviting the spectators to participate actively, thus raising the consciousness of the people involved and empowering the actors in their struggle to better understand and improve their situation. The third project describes an investigation by questionnaires 3



and discussions intended to explore the opinions of several dozen CEOs, experts and representatives about social, economic and ecological perspectives and the role of their organization for future developments. This is called “Delphi Method” and is supposed to “create a public sphere”. All of these projects are characterized by their conceptual frameworks and provide data for social research. Ann-Margreth Olsson, who presents herself as “a systemic coach and systemic researcher”, reports on a project involving 55 social workers and their clients. She uses a method which she calls “dialogical collaboration”. In this study coaching and research grew as intertwined processes of reflexively co-created dialogical joint actions. The next chapter, written by Anja Mirosavljevic, concerns participatory research in social pedagogy. It provides an account of attempts to address behavioural disorders of young people, who are involved in research through a series of mean, for example by being interviewed about their perspectives and providing feedback to the reports. The final chapter of this section, which is authored by Cathy Sharp, gives an account of the general principles of a social work project entitled “Cedar” which operated in Scotland and Canada. In this social workers, their clients (mothers and children who had experienced domestic abuse) and social scientists surveyed and evaluated the project as action researchers. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

The final collection concerns the application of action research for community development. The first of two chapters exploring this issue refers to a project implement by the author, Vivian Ramsden, and others. This work was intended to improve the situation of people by raising consciousness about health hazards and then empowering the community members to take action for their own benefit. The particular purpose of this project was to reduce the consumption of tobacco in several Canadian communities populated mainly by Native Americans in order to protect their children from passive smoking. This chapter reports on some remarkable results, evidenced through surveys and feedback-loops. These show increased confidence of the people in their own strengths as well as the development of sustainable relationships within the community. A second research project about the use of action research in community development is described by Margareth Santos Zanchetta and her team. Their research about the health and living conditions of disadvantaged people in two favelas in Rio viz. Sao Paolo in Brazil and had the ambition to scrutinize their authentic needs in order to improve their situation. This edited collection is a text which evidences the broad appeal of the participatory change approaches of action research to many different fields of activity and in many different international contexts. These chapters show a great deal of commonality of the aspirations of the authors of this work and we, the editors of this volume, would 4



like to thank all the contributors for their dedicated work and efforts which made this publication possible. We hope that this book will further trigger interest in action research and demonstrate practical applications of action research which draw divergent groups of people together in a collective endeavour which, like in the title of the conference which spawned this publication, aims to ‘bring a different world into existence’. The editors

5



ANDREW TOWNSEND

WEAVING THE THREADS OF PRACTICE AND RESEARCH Reflections on Fundamental Features of Action Research

INTRODUCTION

In his seminal work, which many still argue marked the origins of action research (Adelman, 1993), Kurt Lewin articulately made the case for an interventionist form of research famously stating: “research which produces nothing but books will not suffice” (Lewin, 1946, p. 35). In this Lewin was making the case not only for research which was sensitive to the particular nature of specific contexts but also, arising from this contextually sensitive, for research as a means to achieved change. As discussed later in this chapter Lewin is not the only person credited with the origins of action research (Gunz, 1996; Neilsen, 2006), and so action research is a diverse discipline which reflects these complex origins (Townsend, 2010, 2013a), but what all of these differing interpretations share is this for research to be concerned with actionable issues. The application of action research, and the dynamic between action and research associated with it, is often associated with the notion of ‘practice’ and with the idea of ‘practitioner action researchers’ (Winter, 1989). In this action research is conducted by practitioners in practical contexts with the intention of improving both. As a consequence of this action research has been embraced by some professions as a means of professional development. A brief glance at articles published in the journal Educational Action Research reinforces this view; with many having been written by people who have applied action research with the intention of changing their own practice (for examples of this see: Gedžūne & Gedžūne, 2013; Kajamaa, 2012; Tessema, 2012). This use of action research for changing practice certainly seems to have helped spread interest in action research, but within this there appears to be a lack of a clear notion about the actual nature of practice, and indeed of the links between research, action and practice in practice focussed action research. This chapter is intended to open up this issue by exploring the ways in which groups of practitioner action researchers describe the relationships between practice and research in their own work. In doing so it draws on different perspectives on this issue, including questioning whether the term ‘action research’ actually implies a separation of ‘action’ and ‘research’, as some suggest (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009), or whether F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 7–22. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


A. TOWNSEND

the notions of research and action are indeed incompatible, thus making action research a contradiction in terms (Hammersley, 2004). LINKING RESEARCH AND ACTION

The object of action research is that, as Lewin’s famous aphorism goes, there should be “no research without action, no action without research” (Adelman, 1975; Marrow, 1969). As noted in the introduction to this chapter the origins of action research whilst widely attributed to Kurt Lewin, are somewhat contested, with some suggesting a significant early role for, amongst others, Jacob Moreno (Gunz, 1996), John Collier (Neilsen, 2006) and John Dewey (1920). These ‘pioneers’ came from a range of disciplines and were concerned with a corresponding variety of issues, including democratic, progressive forms of education (Dewey, 1920), the relationship between individuals and their social settings (Moreno, 1953) and social models of change (Collier, 1945). But where they are consistent is in their interest in establishing a close alignment between research and actions. Where the settings for this work were associated with the work of particular professions action research is often related to particular practices. Steven Corey made just this argument for the adoption of action research in education. We are convinced that the disposition to study … the consequences of our own teaching is more likely to change and improve our practices than is reading about what someone else has discovered of his [sic] teaching. (Corey, 1953, p. 70) Action research is concerned, therefore, with an inherently ‘practical’ form of research which is located in particular social settings and results in some kind of beneficial change for the people whose lives and work are affected by that research, in other words this form of action research aims to ‘improve’ both the rationality and justice of associated practices (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1982). This is a much more specific and contextual model than most other forms of research, indeed in first proposing this approach, Lewin deliberately contrasted his ideas against research which whilst able to produce general laws, failed to grasp the particularity of specific situations (Lewin, 1946). This work also differs from conventional research in that the ultimate object is the development of practice and not the production of knowledge. The fundamental aim of action research is to improve practice rather than to produce knowledge. The production and utilisation of knowledge is subordinate to, and conditioned by, this fundamental aim. (Elliott, 1991, p. 49) Because of this action research has been adopted across a range of professions as a means of enhancing professional development through reflection and research informed change (Campbell, McNamara & Gilroy, 2004; Day, 1999; Koshy, 2005). This established a close relationship between action research and Schön’s

8


WEAVING THE THREADS OF PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

(1991) notion of reflective practice (Leitch & Day, 2000). In developing his model of the reflective practitioner Schön was not only trying to establish a means by which research and practice might be related through reflection but was similarly presenting an alternative to the conventional approaches to understanding practices termed ‘technical rationality’. Technical rationality holds that practitioners are instrumental problem solvers who select technical means best suited to particular purposes. Rigorous professional practitioners solve well-formed instrumental problems by applying theory and technique derived from systematic preferably scientific knowledge. (Schön, 1987, pp. 3-4) Technical rationality not only positions practitioners as being passive recipients of knowledge about their own work, thus disempowering them and ignoring the insights that they might have, but it also fails to take into account the complexities of practical contexts. The alternative suggested by both action research and reflective practice is to locate efforts to understand practice within the contexts of practice, i.e. within the messy undergrowth, as Schön puts it. From this perspective practice cannot be understood to the same depth and detail from outside those settings as it can from within. Although the link between action and research, and indeed between practice and research, is a central feature of action research, there are some debates about just how this link is established and, indeed, about whether actions and research can be related to each other in the manner intended in action research. Some critique the conduct of research by practitioners who to some are perceived to be ‘novice’ researchers. Furthermore because the interests of action researchers are very much linked to their immediate contexts, the potential for practitioner action research to produce knowledge or result in new practices which are widely applicable is seen as being at best limited, at worst entirely compromised (for a more detailed discussion of this see: Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; McWilliam, 2004). This has led some to suggest that two forms of research on practice are needed, one conducted by practitioners with the aim of enhancing professional development, the other by professional researchers in order to produce rigorous generaliseable ‘findings’ about practice (Hammer & Schifter, 2001; Hiebert, Gallimore & Stigler, 2002). Drawing from the earlier arguments for the adoption of action research and reflective practice there are two particular problems with this suggestion. The first is that it creates a hierarchy in which practitioners are not able not able to influence knowledge about their own practice. It is exactly hegemonic positions like this that action research is intended to challenge. The second problem of this position is exactly the criticism of technical rationality detailed by Schön (1991), namely that the complexities of practice are best understood from the messy undergrowth of practical contexts, and not from the distanced position of an external researcher.

9


A. TOWNSEND

A further critique of action research concerns questions over the very nature of research and also of practice. From one side of the argument Hammersley, in a detailed consideration of the notions of action and research, concludes that ‘action research’ is a contradiction in terms (2004). Drawing on pragmatist notions that challenge a hierarchy of forms of knowledge or actions, Hammersley argues that: [Action research intends to create] a more equal relationship between research and the action it is to serve. Yet this gives rise to contradictory requirements, and thereby makes action research inherently unstable: it will always tend to oscillate in character between inquiry-subordinated-to-another-activity and specialised research. In this sense it is a contradiction in terms. (Hammersley, 2004, p. 176) Hammersley suggests that action and research remain different kinds of activity and so whilst action research might seek for both to co-exist one or the other must always be prioritised above the other (2004). One challenge for weaving action and practice together is therefore in addressing the differing nature of each. Yet this also contradicts both of the aspirations of action research and reflective practice, for action to be a form of research in its own right. Hammersley’s argument is that actions and research are fundamentally differing activities and so cannot be achieved simultaneously; irrespective of how that might be meant to be achieved, whether through the iterative cyclical process of action research, or by relating reflection and practice, one or the other, i.e. practice or research, must be the priority at any given moment. An alternative view of this has been articulated by Cochrane Smith and Lytle (2009) who argue that far from combining action and research, the phrase ‘action research’ actually implies that they are separate activities. Their suggested solution is to adopt an inquiry stance towards practice, which: …is grounded in the problems and the contexts of practice in the first place and in the ways practitioners collaboratively theorize, study, and act on those problems in the best interests of the learning and life chances of students and their communities. (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 123) Thus whilst the aspiration to link action and research is central to the ideals of action research, this is at best a problematic aspiration, at worst undesirable, if one takes the view that research should be the preserve of the professional researcher. This does not wholly satisfy the question about where practice fits in this merging of research and action. It is too simplistic, for example, to see practice as being synonymous with action. Indeed if the ideals of action research and reflective practice are adhered to then practice can be both action and research simultaneously through the application of a form of systematic reflective inquiry. One way of considering this possible link which has emerged in action research literature is the notion of praxis. This is a perspective on action research in which practices are enacted on the basis of underlying ideals (for more on this see: Gibbs, 2014; Grundy, 1987).

10



This emphasises a theoretical and political dimension to practice orientated action research which is perhaps not always so evident in other representations of action research or indeed in reflective practice. The problems of both the notion of praxis and reflective practice is that they do not say much about the contexts or setting for action research, other perhaps than praxis implies a political component to practice which is not so evident in reflective practice. Whilst they do draw attention to the complexity of practical contexts, and to the intention to change practices from an theoretical position (in the case praxis) and from a more sophisticated understanding of the complex and messy components of practice (in the case of reflective practice) what that means for the organisations in which this is located, and in the places and spaces where action research is applied is less clearly articulated. The aim of this chapter, and of the research on which this discussion draws, is to explore just this issue, namely of how practice is related to action research in the work of ‘practitioner’ action researchers (Winter, 1989). This is done with a particular interest in the ways in which the setting for action research influences it application and restricts or enable to potential practical consequences which can arise from practitioners undertaking action research. The way this was achieved is outlined in the following section. THE STUDY: RESEARCHING NETWORKS OF PRACTITIONER RESEARCHERS

The study from which this discussion is derived involved a series of interviews conducted with participants from two groups of practitioner researchers operating in the UK. Both of these groups had been brought together through an agreement between networks of school to collaborate on developments through action research. These kinds of school networks were, at the time, a common aspect of school development in the UK and many of such networks adopted some kind of practitioner research, or inquiry, as either an aspect of their work or, as in the case of the two networks studied here, as their main activity (for examples of networking initiatives like this see: Day & Hadfield, 2004; McLaughlin, Black-Hawkins, Brindley, McIntyre & Taber, 2006; McLaughlin, Black-Hawkins, McIntyre & Townsend, 2007; Townsend, 2013b). Of the two networks which participated in this work one was comprised of a group of entirely primary schools (for pupils aged 4-11), the other entirely secondary schools (for pupils aged 11-19). Both of the networks were composed of schools drawn from a common locality and much of their networking activity was organised through meetings held in member schools. Both had also been in existence for some time, the primary network having been formed in 2001, the secondary network in 1999, and both had varied in size over that time as some schools left and others joined. At their smallest both networks had had six member schools, at its largest the secondary network had had twelve member schools, whilst the primary network fourteen. At the time of collecting the data described here the secondary network comprised six schools, the primary network eight. These

11


A. TOWNSEND

two networks had had no direct links between them but they did have a number of common features as follows: 1. Schools in both networks brought together members of staff to form withinschool action research groups. These varied greatly in size depending on a range of factors such as the focus they were addressing, the size of the school and the number of people interested in taking part. 2. In both networks membership of the school action research groups was voluntary. 3. The groups of action researchers were largely free to choose the topic of their research, but the practitioners within each group tended to focus on one particular topic. Each network had experimented with broad guiding foci for all member schools, the secondary network, for example, had chosen ‘personalising learning’ as an overarching foci one year. But even where this was done each practitioner research group was free to decide just how to address these overarching foci and for most of their existence the choice of a focus was completely open to individual groups to decide upon in both networks. 4. The operation of these networks was managed through a range of within and cross school meetings. Individual action research groups would routinely meet within schools and there were a series of network wide, cross-school meetings at which a member of each school group was invited to attend (in some cases identified as the school coordinator). These cross school meetings were intended partly to share the progress of the practitioner research groups and partly to act as the location at which decisions were made about the progress and operation of the network. 5. Each network also held network-wide events. These were occasions where all of the members of the action research groups would be invited to meet and share their progress. In the network of primary schools two such events were held each school year, whilst the secondary network tended to hold three events a year with the final event for each network being a celebration event to which all staff in all member schools were invited. 6. Both networks had also received support from outside the groups of schools. The action research work of both had, for example, been supported by external facilitators, in one case from a University, and the primary network had, for some of its existence, joined a broader networking initiative which also provided support. The research on which this article is based was concerned with exploring the conduct of practitioner research and was achieved through a series of interviews with individuals who had been active members of school action research groups. For both networks this included personnel with a wide range of responsibilities, including newly qualified teachers, middle managers, senior leaders and, in the case of the primary network, some head teachers of the member schools. The interviews reported here were semi-structured (Hobson & Townsend, 2010; Kvale, 1996)

12



and explored the experiences of participant of conducting action research with a particular concern for how the conduct of research related to their practice. Each interview had started with a discussion about how the individual concerned had first become involved in the network in question, and indeed why they had chosen to do so, and continued with an exploration of some of the specific research ‘projects’ that they had been involved with. This raised a number of issues in the ways in which practitioners related their research to their working contexts as explored in the following section. WEAVING THE THREADS OF PRACTICE AND RESEARCH, THE VIEWS OF PRACTITIONER ACTION RESEARCHERS

This chapter explores a series of themes which arose from the interviews with the two networks of practitioner action researchers. The intention in this is to explore some of the issues that these participants had had in their efforts to relate research and practice, and to explore how those efforts related to their practice. Research as Collaborative, Evidence Informed Practice This first theme concerns the status of research for these participants. Research was described firstly and perhaps most importantly, by these participants, as being a way to established informed judgements on practice. You get a lot of people telling you how you should be doing your job, but here is something that one has had total control over and you have seen that it works and you think, ah, right, you know I am empowered to actually do that, and I have made the difference, or the research has made the difference, or these strategies that we have come up with as teachers in our own right, they have actually worked! (Primary network member) This was a view echoed by participants in the secondary network, who also felt that the research agenda of this work enabled action researchers to pursue areas of interest to them. I think it has, but I think it’s ideally, I think one of my problems with [previous projects] is that [they were]... top down… so I think the new model with more of a... research focus lets schools do it more to their own interests, and I think it is better... because... I think the beauty of... research is that you can also get teams of people working on similar topics. (Secondary network member) The participants not only felt that they had gained insights over their practice from the research they had conducted, but they felt that doing so empowered them to influence judgements about practice. This links the conduct of research with the aspiration for empowerment in exactly the way that was intended by many of

13


A. TOWNSEND

the pioneers of action research noted in the introduction to this chapter. To these participants research was not just about understanding practice, but was about making informed changes through a sustained process of inquiry. From my point of view, I think it changed my outlook on teaching, I think probably because I had been doing it, teaching, for quite some time, I suppose... I was getting a little... jaded with it, and I have to say by being involved with the network and doing those research projects really energised my teaching and, enjoyment of being back in the classroom, and to a certain extent being in control of something and seeing... it work! You put some strategies in place, you evaluate it and the children have said, ‘these do work, this has helped my work’ and from that point of view... I think it has also enabled on to take more risks in the classroom, be a bit more open and hand things over to the children... so in a way I suppose one’s teaching has been freed up. (Primary network member) This participant provides an articulate description of having the freedom to set their own direction for developments through action research, an approach characterised as being ‘social’ but also able to provide dependable outcomes (from reliable research) through which the researcher engages with the views of colleagues and pupils. As an insight this is interesting enough as it ties together some of the fundamental features of action research. But the quote also raises issues of motivation and fear of failure with the feeling that action research provides the opportunity for practitioners to take risks in their practice. Interestingly one less experienced practitioner from the same network saw the opportunity to conduct research as a logical extension to their university education. I’m up for anything and obviously being well I’m quite fresh from university where you are bombarded with the latest research in teaching and education, I kind of thought it was a continuation of that really, but with being able to reflect upon my own practice a little more. So I didn’t have any hesitation about it, I didn’t really have any preconceived ideas as to what it would involve, I just thought, well why not! (Primary network member) Together it seems that the discourses of linking research and practice whilst promoted in universities are less popular in schools themselves. Nonetheless linking research and practice was seemingly about a lot more than just an attempt to build knowledge about the nature and contexts of practice, as articulate in reflective practice. Instead it was seen as a way to empower and motivate the action researcher themselves, giving them a chance to question their own work and to identify developments in their practice in ways which made sense to them and the improved understanding they have of their work as a consequence of action research. But this conduct of research was not an individual endeavour and participants also spoke of how their use of research promoted collaboration as detailed in the following theme.

14



The Collaborative Components of Action Research In addition to the empowering feature of this work, participants also described a social benefit to the action research groups of which they had been a part. In this action research was seen to provide a means for groups of people to work together to address common concerns. This was explained by a member of the secondary network who contrasted their previous experience of conducting research in fairly solitary contexts (this isn’t mentioned in the quote but this participant had a PhD and had worked as a contract researcher), against their experience of the use of action research in their network. It was nice because when I’d done my research before I had done it purely by myself… and yes I’d diffused it through a couple of papers or whatever, but I had never, never worked with any other colleagues on it. I worked with my supervisor, and I’d obviously worked with the kids, but I’d never, I’d never been part of an action research network. (Secondary network member) The conduct of research by these practitioners was seen as a means of providing a greater understanding of the contexts for action and specifically for establishing evidence about the effectiveness of practices. By doing so collaboratively action research provided a means by which practitioners could collectively gain some influence over their work. In keeping with the ideas of networks of action researchers this collaboration extended beyond school boundaries. It is really interesting to share sort of the technical side with other schools and it is great to liaise and especially when [school name] were inquiring about similar strategies they used and what their specific inquiries involved really because obviously what they find out in their school might be interesting for when we were doing a similar inquiry. (Secondary network member) These collaborative relationships were not only concerned with practice, but also with the conduct of research. It was also not limited to collaboration between teachers as this stimulated further questions about the place of children’s perceptions as a part of researching, and making judgements on and changes to practice. Yea because we are doing it for the children to try to encourage them and to develop their learning... as well, and obviously it has got to have an effect, there is no point in researching something and not getting the children’s feedback because then you don’t know where to go from there really. And it is because we got the children to feed back that we decided to investigate the friendship pairs and the paired evaluation. (Primary network member) The participants in this study linked the three notions of collaboration, empowerment and research. To them the conduct of research was, as Lewin (1946) and Schön (1987) had intended, both an informative exercise, in that it had shed light on their

15


A. TOWNSEND

own practice, and empowering, in that they had been given the chance to have a say about what is important to them. But it was also empowering in the sense that it provided a means by which communities of practitioners could form and work together to address shared issues and ultimately share that empowerment with pupils. However this was based on action research conducted in heavily managed settings, i.e. schools, and so it was perhaps also inevitable that participants would also refer to the ways in which their action research related to the leadership of their school, as explored in the following section. Linking Research and School Administration Whilst the collaborative and participatory components of this research were attempts to learn from each other and to achieve greater involvement in action research participants also suggested that they had attempted to relate the conduct of research to the management of the schools in which they worked. Yea but I do think action research things should be also identified in subject improvement plans, like here we have an incredibly rigorous system of planning and whole school planning… so ideally you know, where people are doing action research that should also be in their subject improvement plan and the danger with things like this is that at times people are doing their own projects and without necessarily their heads of department knowing. (Secondary network member) This interest in building the conduct and outcomes of research into school management processes (this participant specifically mentioned departmental and school improvement plans) was partially a desire to ensure that the outcomes of any such research could be more widely used. It was also borne out of a motivation to have some form of coordination of research on practice. This was also an issue which was encountered in the primary school network where they similarly related the conduct of research to the management of schools. The only problem came much later, say in the last year or two, when I think [that] being a member of the SIG group seemed to become a bigger issue in that it was felt as if it was a bolt on extra, and… it was only really at that point that we made sure it was a full part of the school improvement plan and that there was an expectation on all staff that they would [be involved in some capacity]. It became part of what the whole school did… it was whole school staff meetings that led the project, but then a smaller group would do the development work behind the scenes but it would always involve the whole staff so that it wasn‘t seen as a bolt on extra. (Primary network member) The aim was, therefore, to integrate research on practice into approaches on the management of practice. This was seen as ensuring that any beneficial outcomes of research might be applied more widely, but also that research itself was not seen to 16



be the exclusive reserve of a privileged few whose work was isolated from that of their peers. But this relationship between action research and management was not an entirely comfortable one. One participant from the secondary network even went as far as suggesting that people interested in action research were often not those interested in management. I think in a sense there can often be a difference between people who are intellectually interested in research and prepared to do it and the sort of people who run schools, who often tend to be managerial, and its getting the happy medium between them. (Secondary network member) Whilst there does seem to be some tensions in relating research and the management of schools, the above themes do emphasise some of the issues that arose in attempts, by the participants in this research, to enhance their own practice through the use of research. This suggests that the participants found their adoption of action research to be informative and even, although this is a problematic notion, empowering. Research was able to shed light on their practice and lead to informed improvements. But this discussion raises a number of further issues about the relationships between research and practice as explored in the following section. REFLECTING ON THE LINKS BETWEEN PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

The aim of this chapter was to examine the links between practice and research in action research. The aspiration is that, by drawing from the literature discussed earlier and the views of practitioner researchers in the previous section, a little more light can be shed on this central but beguiling issue for action research. Where exactly does this discussion leave us? Well this chapter is not intended to provide the (or a) solution, indeed I am not even certain whether a ‘solution’ is needed. If this relationship between practice and research (and the place of action research in that relationship) is indeed a ‘problem’ it is not, in my view, representative of a deficiency of action research itself. If one adopts Schön’s view of practice being best understood from the murky undergrowth (1991), then a lack of clarity is an indication that one is actually entangled in the importance issues relating to practice. But there is an issue here inasmuch as individual action researchers are concerned with just how their own practices can relate to research through their work. It is therefore a problem which is encountered in the application of action research. In this respect while we may aspire to work in the murky undergrowth of practice it may help us in having a little more clarity about just how we conceive of practice and about how practice relates to research and action in action research. In other words whilst the objects of our work might remain obscured in complex contexts in which the many features of practice are intertwined and difficult to un-entangle, I believe, and am suggesting here, that the threads which are associated with our attempts to intervene in these contexts should be more clearly articulated than is currently the case. This is more an agenda for reflection and ultimately for action too, than it is 17


A. TOWNSEND

an attempt to prescribe particular ‘solutions’. To that end there I think four possible points for reflection and consideration which arise from the study described here. These are detailed in response to a series of questions as follows: How Do We Deal with the Implied Separation of Action and Research in Action Research? The first issue to be addressed is the one most central to this work and concerns the perceived separation between practice and research. In the two networks detailed here the participants described how they had used to research to understand their practice. In doing so research seemed to have been mainly characterised as being related to or focussed on practice in much the way advocated by some protagonists of action research and practitioner research (Corey, 1953; Stenhouse, 1975). Thus the threads of action and research were intertwined. But there was not much evidence in this study to suggest that they were merged in the ways in which reflective practice (Schön, 1991) and some interpretations of action research aspire to. Certainly there was more to suggest that action and research were conceived of as being different activities, in ways similar to those raised by Hammersley (2004), than there was that inquiry was being adopted as a feature of practice in the way advocated by Cochrane-Smith and Lytle (2009). On the one hand this could suggest that the action research of these networks was of the style normally described of as being ‘technical’ (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Grundy, 1987) and yet participants did describe their work as being empowering for them, which is not always regarded as being a feature of such technical action research. The challenge that this poses is to clarify just what is meant by research and by actions, and most importantly to appreciate how they relate to each other, or how they can be achieved simultaneously. By extension the question is not only about how actions and research relate, but also how the settings for action research enable or restrict the abilities of action research to understand and develop their practices. This is a question about what conditions are needed for praxis and reflection to thrive, in short for people’s work to be informed and developed through action research. How Can Practice be Related to Action Research? In the professional fields where it has been applied action research has been linked directly to practice, for example the following oft quoted definition of action research does exactly the same: Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situation in which these practices are carried out. (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1982, p. 3) 18



Whilst Elliott (1991) similarly characterises the main aim of action research as being to improve practice, this issue concerns the status of practice and its relationships with notions of research and actions, and their interdependency, and perhaps even combination, in action research. Is it possible that whilst acting and researching may remain separate activities, practice is a more complex notion which could include both actions and research? Is conceiving of action research in these terms a way to think differently about interrelating actions and research in action research? This question also raises issues around the nature and status of practitioners and poses the further questions: what is meant by ‘practitioner’ in action research? And what are practitioners in action research practitioners of? Are reflexive researchers themselves action researchers, given that they are at least in part studying their own research practice? How Can What Is Learnt from the Application of Action Research in Particular Settings, Be Applied to Other Contexts? The first two issues discussed are concerned mainly with the status of the related notions of ‘actions’, ‘research’ and ‘practice’. This question has similarly arisen from the exploration of the data arising from the networks above, and also from the history and underlying principles of action research. One of Lewin’s original aspirations was to develop a form of research which was able to uncover the particular character of specific situations (1946). Similarly one of the consistent arguments for action research is that the action researcher’s detailed understanding of their own contexts enhances any attempts to try to change or improve that context, emphasising the participatory feature of all action research. But one of the challenges this then provides is in extending any learning, or changes in practices, which may have occurred in action research beyond the particular contexts that they are associated with. This is a similar issue to the first to be explored earlier in this chapter in that it is concerned with the settings for action research. In this earlier issue I suggested that consideration needed to be give for the conditions which would enable action research to thrive, this issue is similarly concerned with seeing action research in a broader context, but in this instance the question is on how action research can lead to changes which are more widespread than the immediate setting in which the action research has been conducted. The participants in this research had developed networks of schools, and collaborative relationships, to try to achieve just this and there is further evidence that networks of this sort can indeed be beneficial in this respect (Day & Townsend, 2009; McLaughlin et al., 2007). But what this does not address is broader questions of the transferability of knowledge and practices emerging from action research. The challenge remains to find ways to build upon the conduct of particular applications of action research to develop knowledge and practices which can span beyond particular settings and can be of relevance across entire disciplines, or even in the case of cross-disciplinary action research, between disciplines. Texts such as the one that this chapter is published in certainly help, as does the journals of action research 19


A. TOWNSEND

which publishes a wide variety of articles on the subjects from a range of different contexts and disciplines. But these are often, as befits action research, focussed on particular settings and rarely, if at all, address this question about spreading the conduct and outcomes of action research beyond those settings. How Does Action Research Relate to Leadership and Management Systems, Formal and Informal, in the Contexts Where It Is to Be Applied? This final question certainly warrants attention given the comments of the participants earlier in the chapter, and is a specific exploration of the previous discussion of the conditions needed for action research to thrive and of the ways in which the consequences of action research can be spread. One of the ways in which participants had tried to deal with the point about spreading action research beyond particular contexts was by associating the conduct of research with school management systems. But this is not an unproblematic strategy, after all there is a danger that practices derived through empowering participatory action research might then become legislated through management systems, thus forcing those practices on some individuals who have played no part in its development and so have no ownership of the practices themselves. However the participants in this study did articulate a desire to embed action research in the work of their organisations. There, therefore, seems to be a potential for the conduct of action research, and for the efficacy of any resulting changes in practices, to be attractive to others and so influential, indeed to extend this point if leadership can be associated with influence the persuasive outcomes of action research would thus constitute a form of leadership. To deny or decry leadership seems naïve and even foolish, but what role should leadership play in the participatory change aspirations of action research? And how does the leadership of the organisations in which action research is conducted relate to the conduct and outcomes of action research? Is there space, for example, for informing leadership through action research? And if there is what are the implications of that for the empowering participatory aspirations of action research? PRAXIS AND REFLECTION ONLY GETS US SO FAR, CONSIDERATIONS IN THE PRACTICAL COMPONENTS OF ACTION RESEARCH

The purpose of this chapter has been to use the comments of action researchers to draw attention to some perceived issues in the relationship between practice, action and research in action research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Hammersley, 2004). The style I have adopted has been to develop a series of questions about just how action research can be applied in practical contexts. This is not the only location in which I have made this attempt (Townsend, 2013a, 2013b) but in this my specific aim has been to contrast this discussion of action research against two 20



related concepts, namely reflective practice and praxis. Neither of these are directly synonymous with action research which they draw attention in differing ways to the relationships between theory, research, action and practice. Unsurprisingly this is a central issue in all action research which was evident in the work of the pioneers of this movement (Corey, 1953; Lewin, 1946). The ultimate aspiration for action research is of course to merge action and research, with practice and research becoming synonymous in a participatory and empowering approach to change. And yet the participants in the study discussed here certainly would not have met this lofty aim. Furthermore there are those who suggest that this is in any respects unachievable (Hammersley, 2004). However these judgements rest on a further question about the very nature of practice and raises questions like: What is meant by a practitioner? And so what would that mean for Winter’s (1989) very notion of practitioner action research? But whilst it may be that individual accounts of action research, or studies of collaborative projects, both of which are common in action research publications (such as this volume and action research journals) the specific interaction between practice and research remains under analysed. In particular further attention is required, I would argue, to understanding the conditions and settings for the application of action research, and for the realisation of praxis and reflective practice. REFERENCES Adelman, C. (1975). The function of classroom observation within the methodology of the ford teaching project. British Educational Research Journal, 1(2), 42–43. Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1(1), 7–24. Campbell, A., McNamara, O., & Gilroy, P. (2004). Practitioner research and professional development in education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical. education, knowledge and action research. London: Routledge Farmer. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Collier, J. (1945). United States Indian Administration as a laboratory of ethnic relations. Social Research, 12(3), 265–303. Corey, S. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers. The challenge of lifelong learning. London: Falmer Press. Day, C., & Hadfield, M. (2004). Learning through networks: Trust, partnerships and the power of action research. Educational Action Research, 12(4), 575–586. Day, C., & Townsend, A. (2009). Practitioner action research: building and sustaining success through networked learning communities. In S. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research. London: Sage. Dewey, J. (1920). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company. Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Gedžūne, I., & Gedžūne, G. (2013). Educational action research to initiate discourse on inclusion in an e-learning environment in teacher education. Educational Action Research, 21(1), 72–89. Gibbs, P. (2014). Deliberation, capability and action research: Knowledge and becoming. Educational Action Research, 1–13. Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis. London: The Falmer Press.

21


A. TOWNSEND Gunz, J. (1996). Jacob L. Moreno and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 4(1), 145–148. Hammer, D., & Schifter, D. (2001). Practices of inquiry in teaching and research. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 441–478. Hammersley, M. (2004). Action Research: A contradiction in terms? Oxford Review of Education, 30(2), 165–181. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15. Hobson, A. J., & Townsend, A. (2010). Interviewing as educational research method(s). In D. Hartas (Ed.), Educational research and inquiry (pp. 223–238). London: Continuum. Kajamaa, A. (2012). Enriching action research with the narrative approach and activity theory: analyzing the consequences of an intervention in a public sector hospital in Finland. Educational Action Research, 20(1), 75–93. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1982). The action research planner. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Koshy, V. (2005). Action research for improving practice: A practical guide. London: Paul Chapman. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. London: Sage Publications. Leitch, R., & Day, C. (2000). Action research and reflective practice: Towards a holistic view. Educational Action Research, 8(1), 179–193. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York, NY: Basic Books. McLaughlin, C., Black-Hawkins, K., Brindley, S., McIntyre, D., & Taber, K. (2006). Researching schools: Stories from a schools–university partnership for educational research. London: Routledge. McLaughlin, C., Black-Hawkins, K., McIntyre, D., & Townsend, A. (2007). Networking practitioner research. Abingdon, England: Routledge. McWilliam, E. (2004). W(h)ither practitioner research. The Australian Educational Researcher, 31(2), 113–126. Moreno, J. (1953). Who shall survive? (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Beacon House. Neilsen, E. H. (2006). But let us not forget John Collier. Action Research, 4(4), 389–399. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann. Tessema, K. A. (2012). The rocky terrain between delocalized and localized, duplication and originality: Learning to write and learning to teach academic English. Educational action research, 20(4), 515–533. Townsend, A. (2010). Action research. In D. Hartas (Ed.), Educational research and inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 131–145). London: Continuum. Townsend, A. (2013a). Action research: The challenges of understanding and changing practice. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Townsend, A. (2013b). Rethinking networks in education: Case studies of organisational development networks in neoliberal contexts. Interchange, 43(4), 343–362. Winter, R. (1989). Learning from experience. London: The Falmer Press.

22


HEINZ TIPPL

INCLUSIVE SPORTS IN STYRIAN SCHOOLS

INTRODUCTION

Based on several case studies (Sereinigg & Tippl, 2006; Weiß, 2008; Hirschberger, 2006; Leick, 2009) the general term “inclusive sports“ was created by the authors. “Inclusive sports” means common sports for people with and without special needs. This term is used especially by PE teachers in Styrian schools, in the area of school sports and by the school administration. In a research project of the University College of Teacher Education Styria (2007-2009) further case studies were collected and the implementation of the term “inclusive sports” was discussed and reflected. These case studies and the following discussion about inclusive sports at meeting with teachers, head teachers, school authorities and leaders of Special Olympics were the initial point of innovation in several schools concerning school sports and PE teaching as well. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE PROJECT “INCLUSIVE SPORTS IN SCHOOLS”

My experience as the author of a case study on inclusive sports in schools (Sereinigg &Tippl, 2006), as the project leader of the research project “Inclusive sports“ and as a PE teacher of 35 years led me to outline the motives for dealing with inclusive sports and the approaches to the subject, as well as to look back at 10 years of theoretical and practical experience with the issue. Below both the theoretical and some practical aspects of the project as well as some conceptual ideas will be discussed. Practical Level As a PE teacher and coach, the different admission tests that students have to pass to participate in PE classes and selection in general have always been challenging issues. On the one hand it was assumed that athletically trained ten-year-olds without special needs would form a homogenous sports group, which could be introduced to competitive sports after four years of seven to eight weekly PE lessons. At the same time less developed children weren’t allowed to participate, assuming that heterogeneous groups are much more work and, as a school inspector for sports put it at a conference on the subject, that “handicapped children would handicap the high achieving pupils in PE lessons“(Sereinigg & Tippl, 2006, 10ff). F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 23–34. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


H. TIPPL

Based on my longstanding experience as the organiser of sports events for people with special needs and as a volunteer for Special Olympics, I have come to a different understanding of the issue that has been guiding my work. Heterogeneous groups are indeed more of a challenge when it comes to preparation and planning. They are, however, also more satisfying for all participants, since a higher degree of social learning and more inputs that lead to a better performance are possible. The participation in competitions as a means to boost performance should be open not only to selected sports groups but also to children and adolescents with special needs. Critical incidents. Comparing the above-mentioned conditions based in selection and elitism in school sports in specialist schools to my own subjective and actionbased theories about school sports which focus on the inclusiveness of sports, especially in relation to sports with and for people with special needs lead me to implement inclusive sports in practice and to address this issue in papers and case studies. Concept Level The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 1994 states that all children with special needs should participate in all school activities without separation, including school sports activities. This affirms the commitment to inclusive sports even though sports per se are inclusive and possible for everyone. This discrepancy that arises in the classroom every day where “the individual and social realities are made up of conflicts of interest” (Altrichter & Posch, 2007), and where practical actions are laden with dilemmas leads to a strong commitment to make these tensions and contradictions visible and to eliminate them, at least for the duration of class, and improve the situation at hand. This principle emerges from all case studies. According to the authors of the studies, it not only led them to deal with the practical development of inclusive sport models but also to reflect on the issue. It has to be noted that all case studies were conducted on a voluntary basis, without remuneration and without acknowledgement from either the employer or the public. Start-Up of a Research Project The idea to start a research project on inclusive sports, following the principles of action research according to Altrichter and Posch (2007), was born during a sports event in Graz in 2005. More than a thousand students and teachers from integrated classes came together and ten colleagues from five different schools agreed to collaborate on the project. They also agreed to reflect on their actions, further develop their practical theories and put them into writing. The fundamental aim of all participating teacher teams was to improve the situation of children and adolescents with special needs in PE classes, based on their 24



experience as PE and special needs teachers and to use sports as a means for better social integration. This aim that was both explicitly and implicitly stated in all case studies was even more remarkable considering the fact that right from the start all teachers and teacher teams held this opinion independently from each other. Accompanying Research Project for the Development and Expansion of Inclusive Sports in Schools in Styria The project was submitted in 2008. Teacher teams of two teachers each from five different schools throughout Styria were participating as project assistants. The project’s aim was to show in case studies, reports and documentations how inclusive sports can be implemented in PE classes and in school sports competitions, which hindering and conducive aspects would occur during the implementation, if the relevant activities had any effects on students, teachers and parents and if so, what these effects were. Particularities of the Cyclical Process of Action and Reflection Since working with the teacher teams was only possible on a one-on-one basis due to financial reasons, individual discussions amongst colleagues were also limited to their own team or the project leader. Nevertheless, when reflecting in small groups on one’s own guiding principles it became apparent that work can also develop successfully in small groups and that it is feasible to develop and expand models of inclusive sports that can even be used with very heterogeneous sports groups on a competitive level (cf. Sereinigg & Tippl, 2006, 50ff.; Hirschberger, 2006). It came as a surprise to all participants that there was a set of rules for training and competition was provided by Special Olympics (www.specialolympics.org/unified sports) (Norins, Harada & Brecklinghaus, 2007). Different perspectives on inclusive settings in sports didn’t stem from within the research community but were brought in from the outside. It was officials, parents and colleagues, who could imagine performance-oriented PE classes only in homogenous groups, who provided different perspectives. Those perspectives were very helpful when introduced in the reflection groups since they fulfilled the function of an “advocatus diaboli”. ABSTRACTS AND RESULTS OF CASE STUDIES

Case Study 1: “Golf and Integration” The starting point of this paper is the idea of introducing the sport of golf into the daily school routine at a secondary school in Graz for all students showing an interest in golf. Some colleagues were looking to provide so-called ‘unathletic’ students 25


H. TIPPL

or students with special needs with an equal opportunity to participate in schoolorganised sporting activities on both training and competition levels. Research questions. Does playing golf have a positive impact on the emotional well-being of children and adolescents? Do children and adolescents who play golf show increased motivation and higher social competence when compared with children and adolescents who do not play golf? Data collection. Data corresponding to the above questions was collected through questionnaires completed by 51 students (10 with and 41 without special needs) and compared in a before-and-after analysis. The ten students with special needs were equally able to answer the questionnaire as three of them had a physical disability and the others had learning difficulties but were able to read. The experiences of ten teachers were documented and summarised in two discussion groups. In addition to demographics, data was collected from students concerning health aspects, social aspects, aspects relating to their independence and support, mental aspects and the level of fun experienced. Students completed this part of the questionnaire six times (three times in the morning before playing golf and again three times in the afternoon after playing golf). The recording of the situation before, during and after answering the questionnaire showed great acceptance of the research process itself by the students as demonstrated by their approving comments. The results were analysed and evaluated using a computer application called SPSS (Statistic Package for Social Science). Additionally, a comparative evaluation of social capital has been conducted (Tippl, 2009 in Gehmacher, 2002) Results of the Case Study Results of the student questionnaire. Playing golf results in a significantly improved level of wellbeing, with some aspects of golf being responsible for that as shown by a correlation hypothesis. The results also confirm the difference hypothesis showing that students with and without special needs experience different levels of wellbeing. A before-and-after analysis also confirms the change hypothesis. All aspects of wellbeing change to a significant degree. This can be confirmed by a social capital evaluation in the seventh grade (class 2a), which revealed an above-average result of 54.63 percentage points (Tippl, 2009). 26



In addition, there is a positive change of the perceived value and the sense of selfesteem among children with special needs. Results of the teacher questionnaire. All teachers observed a more positive perception of the classroom climate in the so-called golf classes as compared to conventional classes. Furthermore it is noticeable that children and adolescents with special needs in higher grades are more dedicated to learning if they are included in training and competitions, even if their personal achievements in playing golf are not as high. The inclusion and the training and playing together with others are the deciding factor. Hindering and conducive aspects of the “golf and integration” project. During the implementation of the project it became obvious that the PE teachers were able to start the project, but despite the decisions made in conferences there was a lack of support, especially from non PE teachers. One reason for this was that the training required more time, which had negative effects on the other teachers’ curriculum. Another reason was that the absences of students taking part in competitions became disruptive and resulted in additional work. Club members of the golf course that was used as a training site by the school also started to voice their disapproval as they were not able to immediately access all facilities during the school’s training sessions. Very helpful, however, was the generosity and willingness of banks to act as sponsors and provide funding for the equipment and membership at the golf course for all participants. The competent actions of PE teachers and the head teacher facilitated the creation of a school environment that was conducive to the project. Also, it was possible to reach an agreement with the management and members of the golf club through talks, which allowed the project to progress. Case Study 2: “All Beginnings Are Hard” Inclusive physical education in a class with focus on sports. The starting point of the case study (Weiss, 2008) has unified physical education for students of a class with focus on sports and students with special needs, which the school administration had to implement at a school without additional funding. Being the head teacher of the class in question, the author intended to use the study to manage and document the development of the class at large. Research Questions • What is the impact of inclusive sports activities on students with and without special needs and on their parents and teachers, if they can jointly organise the majority of PE sessions (5-6 hours per week) in a class with focus on sports? 27


H. TIPPL

• Do unified sports activities have a positive influence on self-esteem? • Is it possible to plan and organise unified training and competition opportunities for students of a class with focus on sports and students with special needs? Data collection. The data collection was based on written and oral feedback from students. These were conducted after the students participated in unified school sports activities (Vario relay, international unified football matches and inclusive school sports week). Eight students without special needs and all four students with special needs participating answered the questionnaires. All students answering the questions took part in the above-mentioned sports events. The questions were regarding the students’ experiences during the events, any changes in behaviour and attitudes towards their fellow students, lessons and the class climate in general. Two sociograms have also been created for this class, one at the beginning and one at the end of the school year as the project came to an end. The thirteen PE teachers were asked to make statements regarding inclusive sports in a SWOT analysis. Eight teachers completed and returned the form. The questions in this SWOT analysis were concerning the feasibility and the future prospects of inclusive sports regarding unified PE classes as well as unified sports competitions. cSTRENGTHS In your opinion so far, why would it be a good idea to include students with special needs in sports activities and competitions?

dWEAKNESSES In your opinion so far, why do you think this wouldn’t be a good idea?

eOPPORTUNITIES Which possibilities do you see for inclusive sports in the future?

fTHREATS What concerns do you have regarding future unified sports activities?

Parents have also been included in talks about inclusive sports and their feedback has been recorded. Summarising Analysis Student survey. According to the feedback from students that have participated in the unified football matches, the behaviour of integrated children and adolescents has clearly changed for the better. Through the unified sports activities also outside of school both groups have got to know each other better and the achievements of students with special needs have been acknowledged and recognised by everyone. Cheering students on, encouraging them, helping them and showing them how to 28



do something in the classroom as well as in sports competitions had a noticeable effect. With time approaching each other became easier for them. The closer contact amongst boys through sports activities has also had a positive influence on a social level. All four students with special needs noticed themselves that they had improved in their sports activities. Two of the boys mentioned that the unified football match particularly had an influence on them. Both of them also specifically said, without me asking, that the relationship with other students in the PE class has improved. Since the students with special needs started to participate more and more in sports activities their motivation to learn has also increased and according to teachers they were able to succeed more in other school subjects. Both sociograms clearly revealed certain polarisations. This means that participating together in activities and getting to know each other better not only resulted in the strengthening of already existing bonds, it also made differences more apparent. This leads to the conclusion that conflicts between students have also increased. Teacher survey. PE teachers predominantly approved of the inclusion of students with special needs in school sports competitions as it increases the students’ selfesteem, has a positive effect on their personal development and is a good example for social learning. They have also expressed their thoughts on inclusive sports not being limiting to competitive sports. Rather it is an expansion to school sports, especially for students that don’t need “special needs support“, but are “limited in mobility” due to a lack of physical activity for years. Hindering and conducive aspects. It became apparent that all teachers teaching this particular class showed a willingness to participate in the project, swap lessons if needed and help with sports events, which was very conducive to the project. Also students, parents and the school administration have been very supportive. However, the inclusive sports project was met with controversy from the education authority for sport. Also hindering to the project were colleagues that shared the opinion that students with special needs are misplaced within a competitive sports setting and should rather engage more in therapeutic exercises. Additionally, the limited opportunities for students with special needs to participate in school sports competitions was discouraging as this resulted in an additional workload and additional expenses for the organisers of the event. Moreover, some students felt aggrieved at the inclusion of students with special needs in international unified sports events and their behaviour and attitudes towards this put a strain on the implementation of the inclusive sports project. Considering these difficulties it was gratifying to witness a change of paradigm within the education authority for sport as they voiced plans to provide teachers and sports venues in order to support inclusive sports events in the future. 29


H. TIPPL

As so often the case with development projects, these projects can only be undertaken if apart from the SHOULD and the HAVE TO there is a strong WANT TO amongst all participants, which helps to overcome obstacles and setbacks and eventually leads to the success of the project. DETAILED RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CASE STUDIES

Inclusion of Children and Adolescents With and Without Special Needs in Sports Competitions All studies show that sport is a medium that can facilitate the meeting of children and adolescents in heterogeneous groups. Through sports, children with and without special needs can explore their capabilities. Also their similarities and diversities are being addressed. Hirschberger’s (2008) study shows the possibilities of common sports activities in heterogeneous sports groups using the example of golf. Players with different disabilities go through training and competition together thus having a common goal and working on their strengths and weaknesses. Sereinigg’s and Tippl’s study (2006) points out that experiencing sports in PE classes creates possibilities for social integration that can hardly be achieved in literary subjects. Social integration can be achieved more effectively in artistic subjects given a helpful setting that is supported by teachers and pupils alike. A set of rules (see appendix) adopted from the Special Olympics Unified Rules and adapted to school sports, provides the possibility to acknowledge the achievements of every athlete. Children and adolescents with special needs can thus be given the opportunity to participate in sports and competitions according to their capabilities. Increase in Self-Confidence and Social Competency In addition to using participant observation and other qualitative methods, the case studies also took online measurements of the social capital in the participating classes. Within one year there was an increase in the coefficient of social capital that consists of relationships on different levels, for example the micro level (family, close friends), the meso level (relationships within classes, groups or teams) and the macro level (religion, worldview), as well as bonding (relationships within a homogenous group) and bridging (relationships with people from other cultures or from outside one’s own community). The control groups partly showed an increase in the coefficient of social capital, partly there was no change or even a decrease in social capital. In Hirschberger’s study (2008) a prae-post-study also showed an increase in selfconfidence and self-competency in the inclusive golf classes. Teacher observations in Weiß’s study (2008) showed that learning was perceived as more important and that students showed more interest in learning. Over the course of the school year pupils with special needs showed improved school performance as reflected in their marks in different subjects. 30



Constructivist Perspective: Inclusive Sports in Schools In Sereinigg‘s and Tippl’s case study (2006, 40ff.) the review of the results of the project leads the authors to conclude that a constructivist approach is also helpful. The individual’s reconstruction and deconstruction of their own world is crucial and guides their actions. All people involved in the project construct their own reality of inclusive sports and, in our case, also of the practicability of inclusive sports activities. In this context the viability of inclusive and sustainable sports projects is vital. Communication and the exchange of individual perspectives create a new, intersubjective world that has two main criteria. One important criterion in constructivism is viability. A construct like inclusive sport therefore has to be viable and feasible even if dealing with the surrounding world creates problems. Furthermore, this worldview and construct should hold well even if there are different approaches and it should bear intersubjective comparison in case a different individual provides a comparable construct with the same or similar results. Our project showed that the construct „inclusive sports“ is viable and successful when desired, supported and fostered at the level of school sports as well as the instructional level. The further development of the project since 2007 has shown several sustainable results. A SUMMARY OF THE POSITIVE OR UNEXPECTED EFFECTS OF INCLUSIVE SPORTS IN STYRIA- RECOGNITION AND DEVELOPING INTEREST ON DIFFERENT LEVELS

There are many positive and unexpected effects of this project of case studies written by classroom teachers on different levels, both in the school systems, teachers´ training programmes, universities and school administrations as well as sports clubs for people with special needs such as Special Olympics on national and international levels. Level of School Administration in Styria Since the year 2008 there has been an opportunity for head teachers to apply for “inclusive sports” PE teachers to support the regular PE teachers when teaching sports in integrated classes as well as to demonstrate good examples for inclusive sports methods and to help organize inclusive competitions. Currently there are “one and a half inclusive PE teachers” in Styria. Level of School and Classroom Teaching In schools inclusive sports activities have an eye-opening effect on teachers, parents and classmates. Students with special needs can show their skills in physical 31


H. TIPPL

activities, are involved in the unified football team or other inclusive teams of the school. Currently about 25 schools are involved in the inclusive sports programme in Styria. Level of Teachers’ Training Teachers´ training programmes and workshops on inclusive sports are being offered by the Teachers´ Training College of Styria and by the Basic Education Initiative of Sports and Inclusion in cooperation with Special Olympics. International Level The goal of Special Olympics is to integrate people with special needs into our society with unified sports. Therefore there are seminars, meetings and conferences organized by Special Olympics International for inclusive sports in Europe. Worldwide congresses and meetings are organized by other sports associations like “sports for all” or “sport and inclusion”. Additional input on an international level has been provided by a European school project (Comenius 2011-2013) with participating schools from Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary and Luxembourg. The name of the project, ARATIS, stands for Awareness, Respect, Action and Tolerance by Inclusive Sports. The ARATIS project continues as part of another Comenius project (2013-2015): Great to be happy in schools – Inclusive sports, in which schools from Germany, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Turkey and Austria participate. CONCLUSION

All people involved, researching teachers, parents and adolescents alike took part in initiating the project and have developed it further. They have gained experience and have drawn their personal conclusions. There will continue to be an absence of a lobby for inclusive sports since those who would need this model for their physical and mental development are seldom able to voice their needs. Due to the shortage of resources, participation in school sports activities will continue to be aimed at selection, and inclusive sports events won’t be organised. Therefore there is no affirmative answer to the question posed by a school administrative officer if there “was a need for inclusive sports activities in school sports that would be reflected in the figures“. The fostering and organisation of sports and exercise for children and young people with special needs will continue to depend on committed and interested PE teachers, special needs teachers and parents on a local and regional level.

32



REFERENCES Altrichter, H., & Posch, P. (2007). Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt. Black, K. (2008). Sport in POST-Disaster intervention. Retrieved from www.icsspe.org Hirschberger, M. (2006). Integration und Golf (Diploma thesis). University of Graz, Austria. Hirschberger, M. (2008). Integration und Golf. Unpublished manuscript, Pädagogische Hochschule Steiermark, Graz, Austria. Leick, O. (2009). Inklusionssport. Retrieved from www.inklusionssport.at Norins, J., Harada, C., & Brecklinghaus, S. (2007). Inclusion of young people with intellectual disabilities in Europe through special olympics unified sports. Washington, DC: Special Olympics International. Sereinigg, W., & Tippl, H. (2006). Miteinander leben - voneinander lernen. Unpublished manuscript, Pädagogische Hochschule Steiermark, Graz, Austria. Tippl, H. (2009). Sozialkapitalmessung in Integrationsklassen. In E. Gehmacher (2002). Sozialkapitalmessung. Retrieved from www.metaprojekt.at Weiß, A. (2008). Integration in Sportklassen. Unpublished manuscript, Pädagogische Hochschule Steiermark, Graz, Austria.

APPENDIX

The appendix includes several models that have, to some extent, been used in this project. This model was adopted from Ken Black (2008) and adapted to the Austrian curriculum for physical education. Inclusion Spectrum: Structure Open activity Everyone doing the same activity without adaptation or modification – or in their own way without conditions. E.g. • • • •

warm up or cool down activities inclusive games, i.e. everybody’s contribution counts continuous activity: individual differences less obvious importance of inclusive language.

Modified activity Everyone doing the same activity, but changes made to rules, space and equipment used in order to promote inclusion. E.g. • • • • •

Space: increase or decrease the distance to a target Rules: some players have more lives Equipment: size of ball, weight or length or racquet or bat Note: changes provide challenge as well as support inclusion Integrity

33


H. TIPPL

Parallel activity Participants are grouped according to ability – everyone participates in the same activity but at an appropriate level. E.g. • versions of the same activity or game (e.g. standing or seated) • a range of small-sided activities • ability-matched zones within a larger activity Separate activity An individual or group do purposefully planned separate activity. E.g. • • • •

young people prepare individually or in a group (team) for a disability sport event individual practise of specific skills Note: this should not be most of the time! In the school context: physio is not PE!

Disability sport activity ‘Reverse integration’ – non-disabled people take part in disability sport. E.g. • include aspects of activities from disability sport or adapted activity programmes in ‘mainstream’ physical education • focus on disability sport-specific activities, e.g. boccia, goalball, or sitting volleyball

34


SHARADA GADE

PRACTITIONER COLLABORATION AT A GRADE FOUR MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM By Way of Relational Knowing and Relational Agency

INTRODUCTION

Drawing on narrative inquiry as well as activity theory perspectives, in this chapter I examine three aspects in relation to research conducted with a mathematics teacher Lotta, as Charlotta is known, at a Grade 4-6 school in Sweden. First, the nature of relational knowing which, born of practitioner narratives, led us to collaborate and take action (Hollingsworth, Dybdahl & Minarik, 1993). Second, the nature of relational agency which, born of joint actions, lead to expansion of the object or purpose of our collaborative activity (Edwards, 2005). Finally, our ability to treat classroom practice on par with theoretical research leading to two significant outcomes: Lotta initially utilising the theory of exploratory talk within instruction (Mercer, 2008), followed by her co-authoring of research relating to conduct of her plenary (Gade & Blomqvist, submitted). In such examination, I pursue what Cochran-Smith and Donnell (2006, p 503) term as practitioner inquiry or “the array of educational research genres where the practitioner is the researcher, the professional context is the research site, and the practice itself is the focus of study.” Drawing on narrative and activity perspectives I thus shed light on taking practitioner action across university, school and a Grade four classroom. Lotta’s conduct of exploratory talk is in line with sociocultural perspectives which view intellectual development of students to be a process of dialogue, meaning making and co-construction of knowledge (e.g. Wells, 1999; Forman, 2003; van Oers, 2009). In deploying exploratory talk, Lotta’s plenary allowed her students to engage with partly formed ideas, air them out aloud and find out what others made of them, as means of working upon their understanding (Mercer, 2008). Such talk is contrasted with presentational talk wherein students adjust their language and content to the authority of their teacher (Barnes, 2008). Lotta’s guidance of students’ use of exploratory talk thus included her orchestrating an environment in which they could take risks while investigating various concepts being discussed, even as she established and held ground rules in place (Mercer & Dawes, 2008). While we detail Lotta adopting a meaning making pedagogy in our reporting of her plenary separately (Gade & Blomqvist, submitted) in this chapter I deliberate on our coming upon teacher-researcher collaboration that led finally to our co-authorship. F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 35–47. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


S. GADE

In line with contemporary calls seeking researchers and teachers to become active stakeholders in each other’s professional practices (Krainer, 2011) I thus explore: How do relational knowing and relational agency as analytical constructs shed light on teacher-researcher collaboration and action? RELATIONAL KNOWING – NARRATIVE INQUIRY

My drawing on narrative perspectives can be traced back to my own practice as classroom teacher. With ability of narratives to grasp situated experience, I have since argued for study of narratives as means with which to understand individual praxis and our taking action as practitioners (Gade, 2011a). Attention to narrative inquiry also leads me to other constructs tailored to study ongoing educational practices. For example curriculum stories attempt to encapsulate the storied manner in which teachers deal with pedagogical content within instruction, as a means of making, conveying as well as recreating meaning for their students (Gudmundsdottir, 1991). Similarly personal practical knowledge highlights the ability of teachers to draw on their constructions of experience as practitioners in classrooms, leading to recognition of teachers as knowledgeable people both by themselves and research (Clandinin & Connelly, 1998). Relational knowing is similar to these constructs and lays focus on knowing nourished with sensitivity in practitioner relationships, both with oneself and with another (Hollingsworth et al., 1993). Formed at the intersection of social construction of knowledge, feminist epistemologies and the very fabric of self/other relationships, relational knowing is not seen as resting in contemplation, but clarified in actions taken by those who are collaborating. Relational knowing thus draws on knowledge of curriculum and instruction, of self and others in relationship and of critical action, each of which contributes to the manner in which practitioner lives are braided with wider purposes of schooling and education (Gallego, Hollingsworth & Whitenack, 2001). In attempting to portray such knowing with Lotta, I do not treat our collaboration as uneventful, but attempt to utilise a vocabulary with which to shed nuanced light on the manner in which the world of sociocultural theory and the world of practice were brought together in Lotta’s classroom (Goldstein, 2002). Four other arguments guide my understanding of relational knowing. First, research which recognises that teacher thinking which underpins processes of change in classrooms is rarely documented. Highlighting this aspect Day argues: Teachers’ personal and professional selves are inextricably bound up in their teaching and thus research into their teaching. Although there is much lip service to this, there is still limited evidence of account being taken in collaborative action research which combines both the story, the action and the change. (1997, p 201) While attempting to showcase the story, action and change that was possible with Lotta, I am cautioned next by Goodson (2005) whose extensive work with teacher’s lives, rightly reminds us that in collaborating with teachers in classroom practices 36


PRACTITIONER COLLABORATION AT A GRADE FOUR MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

we work at a location where teachers experience maximum vulnerability. Arguing that a teacher cannot be equated to his or her practice alone, Goodson asks that research shift focus from teacher-as-practice to teacher-as-person so that teachers’ voices can be ‘heard, heard loudly and heard articulately’ in contexts of complexity within everyday instruction. The possibility of relating to Lotta as a person beyond her practice is very much within scope of relational knowing. Eilertsen, Gustafson and Salo (2008) third, dwell on the sociopolitical nature of collaborations entered into for purposes of taking suitable action in schools. Terming such partnerships as micropolitical activity, they point to the apparently invisible use of language and power that play a vital role in practitioners pursuit of goals and ends. With Lotta’s goals as teacher and mine as researcher being distinct yet overlapping, attention to micropolitical issues in our relational knowing sheds light on how we became stakeholders in each others’ professional practices (Krainer, 2011). Finally, in line with a research tradition that has sought emphasis on practical aspects in educational theory, I examine relational knowing in Lotta’s classroom practice at the intersection of curriculum, teaching and practitioner research. The importance of such manner of inquiry is underscored by Craig and Ross: In order to capture the nuances of the particular – the essences of the practical, future inquiries at the intersection of curriculum and teaching will need to unfold with researchers working alongside teachers, honoring practice, awake to diversity, and inviting participation and insights. Such a positioning will ensure that researchers pose relevant questions of social significance and follow where educational inquiry leads. (2008, p 296) My collaboration with Lotta in her classroom over one and a half years, allowed me to pose questions significant to Lotta’s instructional practice. As researcher the role I first adopted was observational, pursuing student narratives in relation to the mathematics expected of them within instruction (Gade, 2010). This was followed by my reflecting upon narrative as unit of analysis for studying practitioner praxis and action (Gade, 2011a). The conduct of action research in relation to faulty use of the mathematical ‘=’ sign by Lotta’s students followed thereafter (Gade, 2012). More recently my association with Lotta has included co-authorship in reporting a problem posing practice we had orchestrated over time (Gade & Blomqvist, 2014) besides Lotta’s plenary of exploratory talk that I discuss in this chapter (Gade & Blomqvist, submitted). While the incidence of our co-authorship draws on mature understanding reached between us as practitioners, I now trace our coming upon such understanding by offering extracts from writings wherein I had anonymised Lotta as Lea. These writings in turn draw extensively on field notes kept by me, in relation to every visit of mine to Lotta’s classroom. I begin with referring to my experience and role in my first study where I mention: I observed Lea’s conduct of instructional activities in a naturalistic manner. Lea eased me into her class with great sensitivity, which I hope to have reciprocated. (Gade, 2010) 37


S. GADE

Alluding to personal care that feminist perspectives highlight in relational knowing (Hollingsworth et al., 1993) my observation of Lotta’s instruction as initiated above was extended by Lotta’s utilisation of supplementary teaching material on a daily basis. By this I mean Lotta utilised worksheets from a book specially designed for making multiple copies which she stacked on a cupboard alongside her classroom (Rockström, 1996). Lotta designated specific worksheets from these to keep her students challenged and occupied at all times within instruction, especially those who had finished with tasks she had initially assigned to them, even as she worked with students who needed her individual attention. Of this aspect I mentioned: In this manner Lea’s students always had some form of mathematics to pursue at all times. (Gade, 2010) It was during such pursuit of mathematics by her students that I was able to interact with them and elicit their narratives. I further observed: In her students being able to share in comfort and without hesitation their natural dispositions and understanding of the mathematics they were learning, Lea was able to inculcate ... the adopting of responsibility by students of their own learning. (Gade, 2010) Nuancing relational knowing, the extracts above allude to Lotta’s ability to nurture relationships not only with me and her students, but also of her students with their curriculum (Gallego et al., 2001). Reflecting upon the quality of such shared praxis which led to action research we were able to conduct, I again observe: I hasten to add that such a possibility draws on the shared praxis of Lea and myself, an aspect which has taken time to nurture and is suffused with great sensitivity. We have come to realise and acknowledge that together with each of our students, we enjoy, share and often miss the mathematical world we cohabit and create. (Gade, 2011a, p 41) Our conduct of action research needed that we surmise each other in micropolitical terms (Eilersten et al., 2008) especially on how we related to students. My interaction with her students during this time remained informal, yet was carefully governed by her watchful eye. ... I respected Lea’s command over her space and was a willing partner to her ground rules. Over time and by sharing how and whom we had worked with, we had opportunity to gauge each other. (Gade, 2012, pp 554-555) Our eventual conduct of action research drew on my accessing Lotta’s voice as teacher, in the time and space we shared during collaboration (Goodson, 2005). On the narrative manner in which this was procured I explain: In providing our brief exchanges on our way down the stairs or as students ran off to play, the theoretical thread of a developing plot often lent a sense of continuity to the sharing of our experiences. (Gade, 2012, p 555) 38



Finally, while drawing our action research to a close I conclude In line with Lewin’s dictum that theory building was critical and crucial to make progress in educational science (Marrow, 1969) teacher-researcher collaboration as outlined in our study not only resulted in actionable knowledge, but also viable and vibrant social change. As a case of grounded researchertheorising and practitioner-led research, the semiotic practice that longstanding collaboration between Lea and I brought about is, in our view, significant in its being implementable in any mathematics classroom. (Gade, 2012, p 568) The above extracts allow me to highlight relational knowing between Lotta and me as practitioners (Hollingsworth et al., 1993). Yet many noteworthy aspects remain embedded within. First, my being stakeholder in Lotta’s practice demanded that it was her students and teaching that remained the purpose for which I engaged with Lotta (Krainer, 2011). Coming to fruition as action research, this next meant that I was aware of the micropolitical nature of our activity, leading me to weigh means and ends at each step we took (Eilersten et al., 2008). Third, such attention to detail was enmeshed in the concrete circumstances of Lotta’s instruction. Her worksheets and her partnering with my being a researcher were aspects that had material consequences, exemplifying the particular and the practical (Craig & Ross, 2008). Fourth, it was these very aspects that contributed to story, action and change (Day, 1997) as well as how perspectives of sociocultural theory and the world of practice were brought together in Lotta’s classroom (Goldstein, 2002). Fifth, our history of teacher-researcher collaboration was also a story of two practitioners inquiring into their own practice, with relational knowing as analytical construct with which to reflect on Lotta’s professional practice as teacher and mine as researcher (CochranSmith & Donnell, 2006). Finally, in line with narrative perspectives, relational knowing brought the relational character of our collaboration centre stage. I argue that it was only because we lay emphasis on our relationships, both with ourselves and with one another that our knowing did not rest in contemplation alone, but led our actions (Hollingsworth et al., 1993) resulting in actionable knowledge which brought about vibrant social change (Gade, 2012). Lea too by this time was happy to identify herself as Lotta in wider research. It is extension of our collaboration to include co-authoring that I now turn to with relational agency. RELATIONAL AGENCY – ACTIVITY THEORY

In deploying relational agency I draw upon activity theory perspectives (Edwards, 2005) enabling me to explicate the nature of transformation in teacher-researcher collaboration which, geared initially towards Lotta’s instructional practice, changed to co-authorship of research. Built on perspectives of Leont’ev (1978) one of the founders of cultural historical activity theory or CHAT, the analytical emphasis of activity theory is on how human cognition and consciousness are produced in our interactions with the material world. Leont’ev (1981) argued that while taking part 39


S. GADE

in activity individuals are objectivised towards its object or purpose, at the same time in producing or taking part in the activity, its object or purpose is subjectivised in the individuals concerned. In line with such a dialectical approach I view the extracts I offered in the previous section to reflect the manner in which the object of teacher-researcher collaboration was subjectivised in both me and Lotta, even as both of us were producing or working towards the object of deploying the theory of exploratory talk in Lotta’s instruction. Yet as different from analysing the how of our collaboration with relational knowing as construct, it is its object, purpose or the what of our collaboration that I attempt to grasp via relational agency. Building on Leont’ev theory of activity, Engeström (1991) alludes to the manner in which the object or purpose of any activity is transformed, as the expanding of an activity. In such expansion Lotta and I faced many a tension with respect to our roles as teacher and researcher, in response to which our collaborative solutions made us look past our narrow professional boundaries. In this we recognised and addressed our inability to find adequate models in practice and theory with which to bring about dialogue, meaning making and co-construction of knowledge by students. It is our taking joint actions towards this lacuna or purpose, that Edwards highlights with the construct of relational agency and clarifies: In working towards an understanding of purposeful practice with others I want to introduce the concept of relational agency i.e. a capacity to align one’s thought and actions with those of others in order to interpret problems of practice and to respond to those interpretations. (2005, pp 169-170) Edwards goes on to explain the construct of relational agency as located within three explanatory features of CHAT – first, an analytical focus that is beyond the individual person alone, second, consideration of human actions as purposeful i.e. object oriented and finally examination of actions in relation to intentions of others involved in the activity. These aspects are relevant to my analysis, since Lotta’s actions and mine, whether for instruction or co-authoring, were not solely ours alone. Object oriented, our collaboration involved examining the joint actions we took together, even as we drew upon resources across our professional boundaries as teacher and researcher. Alluding to these aspects Edwards further explains: In CHAT terms relational agency is the capacity to work with others to expand the object that one is working on and trying to transform by recognising and accessing the resources that others bring to bear as they interpret and respond to the object. (2005, pp 172) In the above quotation Edwards takes us beyond the notion of expansion of the object of an activity by professionals working across boundaries (Engeström, 1991) and lays emphasis on the importance of accessing resources across these, which in our case was that of a teacher at school and researcher at university. This in turn meant that beyond living our societally conceived roles as teacher and researcher or as public professionals, Lotta and I were not unaware of student´s performances 40



from various countries in international tests like TIMSS and PISA. Such societal reality did contribute to the expansion of the object of our activity, where our agency and soul-searching as professionals, led us to break new ground and look past the research/practice or practice/theory divide. Following Goodson (2005) we were persons beyond our professional practices and were subjects whose voice found way and sought solutions to understanding wider contemporary issues that each of us faced, leading also to collaboration. As explained by Edwards (2010) in our learning and activity, we far from relinquished our primary roles as teacher and researcher. With resources of theory and practice at our disposal, we were changing and reconfiguring our respective practices. In such activity we had opportunity to highlight the role of remediating our professional selves in response to needs we perceived across practice, theory and research. I now explicate collaborative actions that Lotta and I took towards the above outlined purposes in specific relation to our design and conduct of her plenary. While drawing explicitly on the theory of exploratory talk (Barnes, 2008; Mercer, 2008; Mercer & Dawes, 2008) this began with my design of improbable questions for the plenary, so as to promote students’ dialogue, meaning making and their coconstruction of knowledge (Wells, 1999; Forman, 2003; Karpov, 2003; van Oers, 2009). As example: Can Eva and Anton measure Sweden’s length on/with foot? Can Lars and Iris measure their age in/with decimetres? It was also the case that Lotta’s plenary followed her instruction of body and metric measures, during which students took many a measurement in the concrete. Two aspects of the theory we utilised made such design and conduct possible. First, the importance of promoting talk amongst students to promote individual thinking (Mercer, 2008). Second, the importance of engaging in exploratory talk for students, with appropriate guidance, to work upon their understanding of various concepts (Barnes 2008; Mercer & Dawes, 2008). Unsettling normatively held conceptions of various measures and/ or making measurements in a rote fashion (Clements & Sarama, 2009) the design of our questions allowed Lotta’s students to explore the concepts of unit and scale with respect to any measure (Lehrer, 2003) as well as articulate their nascent and emergent theories of measure of which Lehrer, Jaslow and Curtis explain: A theory of measure develops from a grounding in contexts that highlight recognizable goals and functions but extends beyond these contexts to provide flexible adaptability to novel conditions of application (e.g. a new circumstance of measure) and to serve as a foundation for future learning. (2003, p 100) While I present two extracts from Lotta’s plenary talk in the following section, I presently outline the analytical process that evolved when Lotta and I worked towards reporting our case of research. In other words unlike actions taken towards the object or purpose of deploying theory in instruction, I now dwell on the actions we took towards our reporting. Following a five stage process, our actions towards analysis first included listening to my audio-recordings of the talk to confirm its veracity for scientific reporting as researcher. Second, Lotta listened to the recording 41


S. GADE

alone, allowing her to reflect independently as teacher, on her students´ participation as well as her own in guiding students participation in the plenary. Third, we jointly listened to the recording and revisited our conduct of exploratory talk, replete with the emotion and fun that first energised its very conduct. With research literature as backdrop it was in the fourth stage that we were able to identify and highlight principal theoretical categories with which we understood students’ talk. We found three theoretical constructs useful at this stage. First, identify those students who were internally persuaded by their inner voice and those who reacted against the authoritative and normative discourse in relation to metric measures (Bakhtin, 1981). Second, delineate Lotta’s role as teacher in bringing about and maintaining teacherstudent symmetry in her plenary (Mercer & Dawes, 2008). Finally, identify how talk that transpired lay between the polarity of spontaneous and scientific concepts (Vygotsky, 1987). It was only after reaching such clarity that in this fifth and final stage we were able to locate students use of the twin concepts of unit and scale (Lehrer, 2003) and their nascent and emergent theories of measure (Lehrer et al., 2003). I mention too that towards co-authoring, I took on majority role of writing, rewriting and restructuring what was important to report and how this was to be done as researcher-practitioner, while Lotta brought invaluable perspectives as teacherpractitioner. Yet our collaborative actions taken towards purposes of deploying theory for instruction and analysing exploratory talk for reporting, necessitated that Lotta and me look past each other’s professional shoulders, draw on each other’s praxis and build on the recursive dialectic that our roles as teacher and researcher were positioned to bring about. It is these aspects that exemplify how our object of co-authoring was subjectivised in each of us, even as we were objectivised in co-authoring research (Leont’ev, 1981). Following CHAT, this was evidence of the manner in which our cognition and consciousness were produced in our collaboration (Leont’ev, 1978). COLLECTIVE ACTION – EXPLORATORY TALK

In presenting extracts from Lotta’s plenary I begin with the first of ten questions that Lotta’s students had opportunity to explore. Lotta steered the conduct of these by having students pairs discuss individual questions with each other, before they presented their thinking for plenary discussion with their peers. It is Lotta’s role in establishing ground rules with which her students were to participate, that I draw attention to here. In this Lotta used her teacher-student asymmetry, to bring about teacher-student symmetry that was needed for students’ active explorations (Mercer & Dawes, 2008). Lotta began her plenary session as follows: Lotta Karin 42

Now you have to explain to your friend, is it possible and why is it possible, or maybe it is not possible and can we do it in another way ... Read the questions and then you have to answer it And then do we have to say something and if it is an answer can I say it



Lotta

Yes, of course ... Is it true that Sharada could be have written these questions? ... And you must think about the questions and then you are coming to the front of the class ... How will you think if it is not true and we have to listen very very carefully, you have to concentrate

The above extract shows how Lotta introduced the improbable nature of questions, besides addressing Karin’s query about what was expected of them as students. Lotta then drew her students’ attention to me as researcher for two possible reasons. First, she indicated to her students that the questions being explored were not from their textbook, preparing them for work different from say working at routine exercise questions. Second, Lotta alluded to me as researcher to indicate to her students that the questions her students were responding to were for the purpose of research. While clarifying these aspects Lotta guided her students to consider if it was possible for them to respond to the questions at all, or not. Maybe they can be approached in another way, she suggested in addition. As different from preparing her students for the plenary, the second of my extracts shows how Lotta steered her students talk in response to particular questions. Allowing Eva and Anton to read the question for the first time, Lotta instructed: Lotta Eva Many Lotta [??]

Once more Can Eva and Anton measure Sweden’s length with/on foot? Nooo ... No, no, not now ... Eva and Anton will attempt this question ... only them first It works

The above extract shows the kind of control Lotta established over the flow of students’ discussion. Not only did she ask Eva and Anton to read the question again, she protected their right to first respond to a question that addressed them directly, and ahead of others. This she did to ascertain if they thought Sweden’s length could be measured on foot, even while other students were keen to guess if that manner of measurement was indeed possible or not. During this discussion we observed Eva take paces in the space beside Lotta, their desks and the whiteboard. While Noel, another of Lotta’s student guessed Eva’s pace to be a meter, Anton too walked with his feet end to end. The ensuing talk was as follows: Liam Ulla [??] Lotta Noel Leon Nils

You have to go straight ahead What if you go into a building Then you go over the house Noel! Do you have anything good to say And you can go through the house ... and you can go inside the house and jump off the balcony ... And what if it is a high building If you have a map, you can take that, you can look how much a foot is and use the scale of the map ... 43


S. GADE

Upon Nils’ suggestion Lotta lowered a map of Sweden from the false ceiling and went on to discuss how the scale of a map was used. She also explored with Nils and others the spontaneous concept of a person’s pace and the scientific concept of a metric measure of distance (Vygotsky, 1987). Such discussion is indicative of the manner in which Lotta’s students explored through talk, each of the ten improbable questions (Barnes, 2008). The manner in which Lotta used her authority as teacher to allow for continued exploration by students of each question is here noteworthy (Mercer & Dawes, 2008) as in taking these actions Lotta allowed theory, practice and research to coexist and inform each other. CONCLUSION

Two aspects seem significant in relation to design, conduct, analysis and reporting of Lotta’s plenary, born as its incidence was of practitioner collaboration – our deployment of the theory of exploratory talk towards students understanding of measurement and the nature of teacher-researcher collaboration which led to our taking such actions in Lotta’s classroom. In utilising the theory of exploratory talk within her ongoing instruction, Lotta’s students had every opportunity to articulate their nascent and emergent theories of measure (Lehrer et al., 2003) beyond making measurements in a rote fashion alone (Clements & Sarama, 2009). As discussed in depth in the report we co-author (Gade & Blomqvist, submitted) we have found such talk to lie largely along the bridge identified between spontaneous and scientific concepts (Vygotsky, 1987). In line with sociocultural and/or CHAT perspectives, Lotta’s plenary however did provide her students with the opportunity they needed for dialogue, meaning making and co-construction of knowledge (e.g. Wells, 1999; Forman, 2003; Karpov, 2003; van Oers, 2009). Yet it is the taking of action on basis of practitioner collaboration that made Lotta’s plenary come into fruition. For this to happen both Lotta and I became active stakeholders in each other’s professional practice (Krainer, 2011). It was also this very stance that led to our asking questions that were relevant to Lotta’s classroom practice (Craig & Ross, 2008) and extend research that I first reported at a CARN conference (Gade, 2011b) which we extended again as a research report for a journal (Gade & Blomqvist, submitted). My efforts in this chapter have however been to focus on the substance of our collaboration and shed light on the intricacies that such collaboration involved. Towards this I deployed two analytical constructs as units of analysis which allowed me to account for the story, action as well as change that Lotta and me were able to bring about (Day, 1997). By way of relational knowing I was able to shed light on the importance of forming relationships both with oneself and with another in order to know. Our knowing thus did not rest in contemplation alone, but informed our micropolitical actions (Eilersten et al., 2008). Way beyond mere contemplation, our relational knowing (Hollingsworth et al., 1993) led to our conduct of action research, which resulted in actionable knowledge as well as vibrant social change (Gade, 2012). It was also the case that the object or purpose of our 44



collaborative activity expanded in the process of design and subsequent reflection on Lotta’s plenary conduct (Engeström, 1991). From collaborating to use the theory of exploratory talk in Lotta’s instructional practice, we now had the possibility of responding to wider societal demands and co-create solutions to problems we perceived as both teacher and researcher. In line with Leont’ev (1981) while these distinct objects or purposes of our activity were subjetivised in each of us, both the plenary and the co-authoring of our research objectivised our cognition and interactions with the material world, perceived by us as professionals. In was with such manner of relational agency (Edwards, 2005) that Lotta and me were able to transform the world in a Marxian sense. While Lotta and me have just reported the action research we conducted in relation to the mathematical = sign in a teachers journal (Blomqvist & Gade, 2013) we believe our collaborative actions to be basis for many more informed steps that we shall be taking ahead. In doing so we meet Seymor Sarason’s (1972) long standing counsel – that to create and maintain those conditions which make school learning stimulating for children, one has to create the same for teachers as well. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This writing expands on first reporting of Lotta’s plenary (Gade, 2011b) and our subsequent co-authorship (Gade & Blomqvist, submitted). I thank Cecilia Persson for playing host to practitioner collaboration, besides her Grade four classroom. REFERENCES Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Barnes, D. (2008). Exploring talk for learning. In Mercer, N. & Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 1–15). Cornwall, England: Sage. Blomqvist, C., & Gade, S. (2013). Att kommunicera om likamedtecknet. Nämnaren, 2013(4), 81–84. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1998). Stories to live by: Narrative understandings of school reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 28(2), 149–164. Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2009.) Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. Cochran-Smith, M., & Donnell, K. (2006). Practitioner inquiry: Blurring the boundaries of research and practice. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 503–518). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Craig, V. J., & Ross, V. (2008). Cultivating the image of teachers as curriculum makers. In M.F. Connelly, M.F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 282–305). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Day, C. (1997). Working with different selves of teachers: Beyond comfortable collaboration. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), International action research: A casebook for educational reform (pp. 190–203). London: Falmer Press. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182. Edwards, A. (2010). How can Vygotsky and his legacy help us to understand and develop teacher education? In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Cultural-Historical perspectives on teacher education and development (pp. 63–77). New York, NY: Routledge.

45


S. GADE Eilertsen, T., Gustafson, N., & Salo, P. (2008). Action research and the micropolitics in schools. Educational Action Research, 16(3), 295–308. Engeström, Y. (1991). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Multidisciplinary newsletter for activity theory, 7/8, 6–17. Forman, E. A. (2003). A sociocultural approach to mathematics reform: speaking, inscribing, and doing mathematics within communities of practice. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 333–352). Reston, VA: NCTM. Gade, S. (2010). Narratives of students learning mathematics: Plurality of strategies and a strategy for practice? In C. Bergsten, E. Jablonka, & T. Wedege (Eds.), Mathematics and Mathematics Education: Cultural and Social Dimensions. Proceedings of The Seventh Mathematics Education Research Seminar MADIF7 (pp. 102–112). Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University. Gade, S. (2011a). Narrative as unit of analysis for teaching-learning praxis and action: Tracing the personal growth of a professional voice. Reflective Practice, 12(1), 35–45. Gade, S. (2011b). Taking collective action through exploratory talk - The case at a grade four mathematics classroom. Paper presented at The Collaborative Action Research Network (CARN) Conference, 4th 6th November 2011, Vienna, Austria. Gade, S. (2012). Teacher researcher collaboration at a grade four mathematics classroom: Restoring equality to students usage of the ‘=’ sign. Educational Action Research, 20(4), 553–570. Gade, S., & Blomqvist, C. (2014, in press). “Crooked Carsson had 160 kronor. He bought a robot for 50 kronor and the entire universe for 50 kronor” From problem posing to posing problems by way of explicit mediation at Grades four and five. In F. M. Singer, N. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.), Problem posing: From research to effective practice. New York, NY: Springer. Gade, S., & Blomqvist, C. (submitted). Exploratory talk and meaning making pedagogy as Professional Learning Task: Teaching-learning measurement at a Grade four mathematics classroom. Gallego, M. A., Hollingsworth, S., & Whitenack, D. A. (2001). Relational knowing in the reform of educational cultures. Teachers College Record, 103(2), 240–266. Goldstein, L. (2002). Moving beyond collaboration: Re-describing research relationships with classroom teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 8(2), 155–170. Goodson, I. (1991/2005). Sponsoring the teacher’s voice. In I. Goodson (Ed.), Learning, curriculum and life politics: The selected works of Ivor F. Goodson (pp. 232–240). Cornwall, England: Routledge. Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991). Story-maker, story-teller: Narrative structures in curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(3), 207–218. Hollingsworth, S., Dybdahl, M., & Minarik, L.T. (1993). By chart and chance and passion: The importance of relational knowing in learning to teach. Curriculum Inquiry, 23(1), 5–35. Lehrer, R. (2003). Developing understanding of measurement. In J. Kilpatrick, W.G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 179– 192). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Lehrer, R., Jaslow, L., & Curtis, C. (2003). Developing and understanding of measurement at the early grades. In D. Clements, & G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teaching measurement: 2003 yearbook (p 100–121). Reston, VA: NCTM. Leont’ev, A.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Leont’ev, A.N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Karpov, Y. (2003). Vygotsky’s Doctrine of Scientific Concepts: Its Role for Contemporary Education. In A. Kozulin, B. Gidnis, V. Agayev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 65–82). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Krainer, K. (2011, July). Teachers as stakeholders in mathematics education research. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Group of Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), (Vol. 1, pp. 47–62). Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University. Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York, NY: Basic Books.

46


PRACTITIONER COLLABORATION AT A GRADE FOUR MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM Mercer, N. (2008). Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human Development, 51(1), 90–100. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer, & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in schools (pp 55–71). London: Sage. Rockstrom, B. (1996). Matteboken 6: Kopiersunderlag [Mathematics book 6: Copying support]. Stockholm, Sweden: Bonnier Utbildning AB. Sarason, S. (1972). The creation of settings and the future societies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1 – Problems of general psychology. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Wells, C. G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

47



GWADABE KURAWA & GARBA AZARE

USING DRAWING IMAGES IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

CONCEPTUALISING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Inclusion is a dominant and ‘elusive’ concept, as there are multiple meanings of inclusion, used by different people in different countries and, hence is used in different ways. For example, in the United States, Lipsky and Gartner (1997) see inclusion as effectively being about a reform of special education in order to place and maintain students with disabilities in mainstream schools. But in the United Kingdom, the recent guidance from Ofsted for inspectors and schools begins to align educational inclusion with social inclusion, and associates it mainly with improving attendance and reducing the incidence of exclusion (Ofsted, 2000). However, becoming inclusive, Julie Allan suggested, means becoming political; listening to what children say (Allan, 2003). This draws attention to the fact that inclusion increases democratisation. Children’s voices are heard and children are given the opportunity to comment upon and to influence matters concerning their education (Kurawa, 2010a). Of course, listening to the children themselves might give great insight. But are SEBD children equally heard and involved in identifying features and initiating processes within schools which are important for their education? If not, as it is rarely done, insights into the understanding of education practices from the perspectives of SEBD children are needed, and this paper is one contribution to the area. The first section of the paper provides conceptual frameworks on the young persons’ right to have a voice and an active role in their education, highlighting political and legal initiatives that have contributed to this issue. The second section describes the research setting and participants of the study. The third and fourth sections describe the methods, drawing and interview, used to explore subjective views of the young persons and to analyse the data collected. Whilst fifth section presents and discusses the themes that emerged from the studies, the last part reflects on the whole process, especially the ethical issues encountered in the study. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Children´s and young people’s right to have a voice and an active role in decision making and planning in education has, until recently, been particularly lacking F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 49–63. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


G. KURAWA & G. AZARE

(Cruddas, 2001). This issue, Cruddas (2001) continues, is a sensitive but slowly emerging area and it is supported by, and this paper draws on, political and legal initiatives. The main legal influence has been the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), adopted by the UN in 1989 and the UK in 1991. It brings together the familiar view of children as in need of protection and provision, with a different view, of children as individuals in their own right, as ‘social actors’, who can form and express opinions, participate in decision-making processes and influence solutions (Bragg, 2007). In particular, Article 12 emphasises that children have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, but the convention says that this right must be interpreted along with Articles 2 and 23, which seem to imply that they have a right to maximum participation ‘in all matters affecting the child’, irrespective of their disability (UNCRC, 1989: Article 12). In compliance with the Article, the British Government urges schools to ‘make every effort to identify the ascertainable views and wishes of the children about their current and future education’ (DfE, 1994: para. 2:36). However, the UK Government was criticised for not legally enforcing children’s rights (The Committee, 1995). Rudduck and McIntyre (2007) argued that the UK Government was moving more quickly to keep up with the UNCRC provisions. It has encouraged both nongovernmental and governmental agencies, including local education authorities (LEAs), to ensure that young people’s views are canvassed on issues that affect them. For example, in 2003, the ‘Government’s Green Paper: Every Child Matters’ (DfES, 2003a) highlighted the importance of young people being able to participate in decision making on the issues that are important to them and to make a positive contribution to their community, both in and out of school. It affirmed that services (including education) ‘should involve children and families in putting together the picture of their needs and in designing the services to meet those needs’. The subsequent document ‘Every Child Matters: Next Step’ (DfES, 2004) provided a vision for transforming children’s services, including more opportunities for children to get involved in decisions about those services. In education services, the Code of Practice suggests that pupils should be ‘actively involved at an appropriate level in discussions about their Individual Education Plans (IEPs), including target setting and review arrangements’ (DfES, 2001: p. 28). Guidance (DfES, 2003b), on obtaining children and young peoples’ views also, provides a basis for schools to decide how best to involve pupils in all aspects of life at school. Interestingly, inspectors from the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted, 1992) lent their considerable weight to the pupil´s voices: they carried the logic of pupil involvement into their enquiries by formally asking pupils about aspects of schooling. Though Wright et al. (2000) argue that educational rights to have a voice and an active role in education for SEBD students remain an issue, this paper aims to explore SEBD students’ experiences

50



on their schooling. Before doing that, first the paper describes the research setting and the participants. RESEARCH SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The school involved in this study has about 50 pupils, aged 11 to 16, on the roll. All of them need, as the head teacher claims, special educational help. Some are among the most vulnerable youngsters in the area which the school serves, others have medical conditions and a number have come from difficult backgrounds which have led them to develop behavioural issues. The author, who carried out the fieldwork, is linked to the school through his supervisor, a trustee of the school. After an initial meeting, he provided a brief outline of the intended research, the school expressed willingness to help with the research. The research explores the extent of understanding and engaging with SEBD children using drawing and interview methods. DATA COLLECTION METHODS

We are aware that the way in which a researcher perceives the status of children influences the choice of methods s/he uses. In choosing the methods the writers are committed to the view that perceives children as capable of expressing their views freely. Although existing research indicates that children with SEBD often have limited communication abilities (Clark & Moss, 2001), they ‘have the ability to capture feelings and emotions through drawings’ (Burke & Prosser, 2008: p. 414). As such, drawing technique was used to help the participating SEBD children to explore their experiences about their schooling. In their State of the Art review into listening to and consulting with young children, Clark et al. (2003) provide an extensive list and descriptions of methods that demonstrate the range of tools available for listening to young children. In that list, there are innovative ‘techniques for listening to young children which shift the balance away from the written or spoken word to approaches which focus on visual or multi-sensory methods’. One of these visual methods is drawing. For example, Angelides and Michaelidou (2009) used drawing as a method alongside discussions with 22 five-year-old children in order to understand and address marginalization in pre-primary school in Cyprus. The paper reported four cases of children identified and considered to be marginalised in their different ways. In addition, through the same drawing technique, also used in Cyprus by Eliadou (2011), children that participated in the research from both primary and secondary schools depicted the patterns of their social interactions in the schools. Equally, in another study in England, Morrow (2001) used drawing and other methods to explore 12-15 year old children’s daily lives and the relevance of certain places for their social relationships. Bearing in mind that drawing can act

51



as catalyst of communication for children the researchers tried to use the technique alongside interviews in order to understand SEBD children’s experiences on their schooling. This drawing activity was tried out with children who were asked to draw four things they liked about school and four things they also disliked about it. They were also told they could draw whatever they wanted and children drew in their free time, given normally by teachers when children have done some work, and in the whole class session with the permission of class teachers. It was emphasised to those children who were unable to draw that a sentence or a phrase was a valid response. Some of the themes that emerged from this exercise were somewhat similar to those from the interviews, which I will discuss next. For the interviews, as the writers wanted to learn about student experiences so as to understand more about SEBD educational experiences in a special school, they used, as suggested by Mayall (2008), a pair interview. Pair interviews were chosen because they provide the interviewee with a ‘buddy’: someone with whom they are familiar. Mayall (2008) suggests that this interview procedure facilitates an atmosphere of trust between interviewee and interviewer. Six students, one from each Form group, were selected as interviewers. At times one of the authors became the interviewer when the student interviewers were unavailable. Asking students’ opinions about their schools’ experiences is, Lewis (1992) suggests, less stilted, more natural and more reflective to discuss within a child-to-child cooperative setting. Mayall (2008) notes also the humour, support and readiness of children to talk to their classmates and people they are familiar with in pair interviews. The writers are aware, however, that doing research that involves children entails a whole range of ethical issues. First, gaining access to the children meant explaining to them the purpose of the research, which the head teacher did during the assembly on the second visit to the school. Before their engagement with the research each student was given a letter, for his/her parents to sign giving consent for their participation. Students’ on-going consent was regularly checked by asking them whether they still wanted to take part in the research activities telling them that they could withdraw at any time. As part of giving consent, students were told that what they said and drew would be confidential between the researchers and them, though the writers had a responsibility to help if they disclosed anything related being at risk of harm or other problems, and they would discuss this with them first. No such disclosure was made during the course of this research. Also, as excerpts of what they said/drew would be used in research reports and papers, the authors asked them to choose the pseudonyms they would like to use for themselves, which most of them did. This helped to build trust and rapport with them and made them feel comfortable. Building rapport between the interviewer and the interviewee, according to Glesne and Peshkin (1992) is considered necessary in order to generate free, frank and pertinent information from the interviews. In addition, this attitude of addressing ethical issues was a 52



key facilitator of cycles of interactions between us, as researchers, and the students and that led us to a productive discussion and exchange of ideas about teacher professional and personal qualities, recognition of good lessons and activities, which can lead to healthy living, available for children who attend school. What follows is the presentation and discussion of the themes that emerged from both interviews and drawings. Before presenting the themes, I briefly explain how the data was analysed. DATA ANALYSIS

Although there are no fixed criteria for qualitative analysis, there is, however, a wide range of analytical methods for handling the data the authors have gathered. They looked at one of these methods and tried to use the ‘few canons for qualitative data analysis’ that underlie the method (Miles & Huberman, 1984: p. 16). They are referring here to what Thomas (2009) called an illuminative analysis, adopting the assumptions of interpretivism. The aim in using an interpretative approach is to help the readers to understand the social world of the particular setting and the way children view it and to help practitioners in the setting to bring about improvement. The basic analytic method of the interpretative researcher is, as Thomas (2009) suggests, constant comparison. Specifically: The constant comparative method involves going through your data again and again (this is the constant bit), comparing each element – phrase, sentence or paragraph – with all of the other elements (this is the comparative bit) There’s nothing more complicated than that. (ibid. p. 198) Therefore, in this research, following interpretative paradigm, the authors followed this constant comparative approach to data analysis. Data was analysed by making sense of the drawings and reading all the transcripts, selecting images and underlining parts thought to be important from each interview with a young person. As the analyses proceeded and where there were recurring images or comments or ideas in the data, themes were created. Initially, a number of themes emerged after first and second readings of the data. Further consideration led to combining several themes together which reduced the overall number of themes. Some of the common themes represented in the drawings and interviews were as follows: • Teacher qualities • Recognition of good lessons/specific subjects • Options or activities FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The paper now presents and discusses the themes that run through the two forms of data beginning with teachers’ personal characters. 53



Teacher Qualities Students produced a number of images which variously represented their teachers as supportive and caring as in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Figures 1 and 2. Sample drawings of a teacher by two Year 8 students.

When students were asked about their school, they contributed by saying that the environment was, most times, conducive for learning and at times it depended on the area or class you were. For example, the school was seen to be friendly and had good teachers who listened and provided help to students: 54



The school is good ‘cos we know who to talk to get help and they help us, not like in other [previous] schools. [Q13, student interview, 18/6/2010] In small class like this you get more support and at times daft. [Q26, student comment, 25/1/2010] Teachers give us more chances and listen to our problems. [Q20, student comment, 28/1/2010] In light of this, for instance, positive claims were made about the atmosphere of the school, which was described as safe, relaxed and happy. The atmosphere is relaxed, happy and joyful. [Q12, student interview, 21/6/2010] A number of students also talked of how the atmosphere in the school and classrooms were highly dependent on which lesson it was. Depends on which the lesson is, ‘cos some pupils don’t like some lessons and do like couple of lessons, in the lessons they like the class is quite while in the lesson they don’t like is noisy. [Q31, student interview, 30/6/2010] These are indicative conclusions from students on the nature of the learning context. For example, when pupils were asked about their experience in school, ‘help and listen’ were the main words uttered in the sentences and images. Consequently, talk with and help from teachers were important, as was the work they provide students with. . Even though students mentioned both teachers’ ability to listen, speak and provide help to students, the emphasis placed on ‘help’ does allow one to infer that it was the help, not the ability to speak and listen, that was valued more. One can also say that the atmosphere in the school seems favourable to teaching and learning, since most students find what they need that reinforces their classroom and school experiences. A view that was challenged by a number of students who guessed on the conduciveness of the context for learning. The issue, on noise in lessons disliked by students, might seem insignificant to the staff in the school but was important to the children’s enjoyment in the subject areas identified in the school. Otherwise, this can lead to disaffection and behaviour difficulties (Cole, Visser & Upton, 1998). Recognition of Good Lessons/Specific Subjects Next are some drawings that represented particular subjects taught to the students that they found interesting. Similarly, the students, speculating about what would not appeal and appeal to them to attend school, arrived – through the interview of the crucial importance of learning interesting but not boring lessons – at this conclusion. Large response from the interviews with students revealed that they are motivated to come to a lesson if 55


Figure 3. A sample drawing depicting particular subjects by a Year 10 student.


56



the teacher is making subjects interesting and enjoyable. Overwhelmingly for these young persons the school was seen to be ‘fun’ because it was considered as a place that provides opportunities for learning and more fun or hands-on activities that the children like. I come just to learn if the teacher is doing exciting not boring lessons. [Q21, student interview, 1/7/2010] …there are more fun activities in other rooms like D&T, ICT, Food-Tech and science – ‘cos we like making and doing different things not like writing all the time. [Q8, student interview, 7/1/2010] … it is fun around the school ‘cos am using my hands like in brick work, motor vehicle and gardening. [Q32, student interview, 18/6/2010] Some subject teachers were viewed as being more capable in explaining the work or tasks well and the importance of being able to attend the subjects was stressed by these comments: [I] also like Art the way Mr [XX] explains the work to be done and helps to do the work if needs be. [Q1, student interview, 10/3/2010] I come in order to learn and I enjoy the lessons [Maths, science, English, Vocational and food-tech] but not all lessons like [a named subject]. I also come to school to get GCSEs, good qualifications to be a veterinary person. [Q15, student interview, 18/6/2010] This is an important message, surely, being articulated here by the students to the staff: that in the school there is much to learn about what teachers were doing to make their lessons interesting and appealing to children to come to school. Specifically, students clearly indicated their preference for core subjects that may prepare them for work, or high education, and other subjects that teach everyday skills and competencies. The students also valued the ability of teachers who explain and teach lessons in a fun way. This confirms some of the findings of our enquiries (Kurawa, 2007/2010b). This message can help teachers to adapt programmes and practices to increase pupils’ access to, and engagement with, education in schools. In particular, plans can be adapted to pupils’ preferences and lessons delivered with regard to that preference. In other words, what they have to say about the ways they wish to learn is a warning to those who want to disregard their preference of methods of delivery they want to be excited, who particularly want the opportunity for practical work. Although students named individual subjects, no teaching staff within the school seemed to be excluded in teaching children exciting lessons. In the same breath they negate some of those lessons.

57



Options/Activities Students produced a series of individual drawings which represented the activities on offer such as football and boxing

Figure 4 and 5. Sample drawings of activities available in the school from two Year 11 students

There is a range of activities provided for the students by the school. Each day the school has a number of activities that take place within and, at times, off the site which support the aims of the school: provide, develop and encourage. The range of activities is made known to the pupils by their Form tutors and/or at assembly along with the criteria by which pupils are able to access them with enthusiasm. Normally, these activities are available to all children except those with the specified points for behaviour for which the activity cannot be accessed. These options, as we can see 58



below, are having an impact of some kind on student behaviours and well-being. Some comments, and drawing from the students illustrate this point: There are: More privileges to work towards and I like the choices of activities given in this school. [Q8, student comment, 28/1/10] …During break time, there are activities to choose, football, pool, ICT and table-tennis. In mainstream schools there are not enough options/choices, but here is easier on what you got to pick and staff make sure you get a go of what you’ve chosen. [Q1, student interview, 10/3/2010] A comment from this student also described what happened when they did get more activities to play through rewards: In this school you get more activities through rewards which means you achieved a behaviour target. [Q33, student comment, 25/1/1] So, there are opportunities for children to play an active part in the indoor and outdoor activities as mentioned above. Also, children will consider a number of options and choose from the range of activities to identify the most appealing to play, and that provided beneficial outcomes for the children and school. The effect is apparent in the work of Medcalf et al., (2006: p. 171) which ‘show ... an increase in time spent ‘on task’ was evident in the lesson post PE [or physical activities] compared to that before’. Equally, Fox and Avramidis (2003) have found these options to be catalyst for reducing disaffection, promoting inclusive practices, and permanent exclusion for a vulnerable group of pupils. In this sense, this school is meeting the aspiration of Government (see DfES, 2003a) by helping children, through the activities, not only to grow up healthily, physically and mentally but also increasing the inclusion and participation of children who attend the school.

REFLECTION ON THE PROCESS

The aim of the study, as stated earlier, was to elicit young people’s perspectives on their schooling using both, verbal and visual, methods that enabled them to choose and control what they wanted to illustrate. What was also done with the students was a drawing exercise. All children present at the time were invited to draw four things they liked and disliked about school. Through this symbolic method children communicated their views in an interesting and funny way. Remarkably, these children have noticed aspects of school’s practice that teachers or the researchers might not have noticed. We can see from both drawings and interviews that students picked up issues that (some) teachers were unaware of, like the fact that non-practical or boring lessons had a negative influence on children’s academic motivation and that students 59



showed their growing interest in teachers’ personal strengths, like listening skills, that affected them. Through such examples, it is evident that pupils can identify factors that adults might not identify. Research with children (Morrow, 2001; Clark et al., 2003; Angelides & Michaelidou, 2009; Eliadou, 2011) employed the method of exploring students’ feelings about different aspects that matter to them by means of drawing as it was also considered here together with the formal method of talking to children in pairs. Mayall (2008) notes the humour, support and readiness of children to talk to their classmates and people [in this case staff present during the exercises] they are familiar with in pair interviews. Whilst the researchers were aware of the fact that the presence of staff can breach ethical procedures in terms of revealing student views in a way that is identifiable, they agreed to staff being present during the interview and drawing activities. They felt that what was more important in engaging the participants with the research was not to put children’s well-being, including theirs, at risk in case the children would be very disruptive, as they were not authorized, at the time, to restraint students. This does not mean that the researchers did not protect student identities or intrude into their privacy. They did make them feel that their views were confidential by explaining to them, at the outset, the reasons why a member of staff had to be present, and agreement of confidentiality between students, the writers and the staff present during the activities. Our joint actions during the interviews helped us to understand the child by listening to his/her voice. In that way, the authors recorded children’s voices in a way which was more likely to be manageable and participatory. The aim of participatory research is to increase empowerment of the disempowered children through social action. In the UK the history of research on pupil involvement has four identifiable approaches: students as sources of data, students as active respondents, students as co-researchers, and students as researchers (Fielding, 2001). In this research we conversed with the children at school, and focused on descriptions and interpretations of experiences of the children. In this way, we are aware that we did not treat children as voices within the data, nor involved children as co-researchers or researchers. What we did was engaging children in an active process of exchange of meanings. Of course, we involved the children actively in the process of the research to the extent that we made them feel that they, partially, were leading the initiative which they then drove forward. For example, student interviewers’ engagement with their schoolmates in conversation about teacher qualities helped not only in developing understandings of some, likeable and, apprehensive teacher behaviours but also in training staff about language and voice by the school at particular time during the study. This was because students were intimidated by the fact that some teachers had shouted at them or spoken louder during the lessons. It can be inferred here, children at least helped in training staff through the process of our research since they had been given an active role to make difference.

60



More so, whilst we were working with students in this way, giving them the opportunity to express their emotions and to actively liaise with us to study aspects of their school practice, we gradually realised how influential this experience was in the development of our own learning about different methods of research. We realised that as we were helping the staff, in collaboration with students, to reflect on their own behaviours or practices, we were also reflecting on our own approaches of research. A significant point of this reflection was the project (Kurawa, 2007) that one of us carried out, also in the UK, before the commencement of this investigation. While in the earlier investigation we had used a research design that treated children as sources of data, in the latter inquiry an alliance was partly forged between us as researchers and the students in collecting data. And more importantly, we consider the students involvement with the inquiry as a way through which our own thinking developed in terms of methodology. Although this can be seen as imposing our views, as we projected meaning, to the drawings and views of children, we also argued that this kind of student involvement is the first step towards bridging the worlds of research and practice in the sense that it calls for an increased role for the children’s voices in research process. Adopting this approach, the writers demonstrated that, as a consequence of engaging with the students in conversation, student voice prevailed and afforded privileged status in reporting what was found. What was found related to matters that affect the child’s education and well-being: teacher characteristics, recognition of specific subject and activities provided to the children. For example, children described the good behaviours of teachers, talking and listening, which were appealing in, may be, motivating them to attend school. They also felt able to tell about the support they received from staff (on, probably, both personal and academic matters) and seem satisfied with staff. Children’s satisfaction with the school also related to teachers’ pedagogical approach, for example, ‘doing exciting not boring lessons’, ‘explains the work to be done’ and doing fun or handson activities. In the future, one of the students wanted to be veterinary person as he saw the job as having a heroic role in protecting and helping the neglected animals. Children’s enjoyments were also related to activities provided to them by the school, for example, football, pool, ICT and table-tennis. These options motivated students to work towards achieving positive academic or behaviour outcome. These practices of the school which children identified through drawings and interviews, we shall claim, affirmed their agency and ultimately influenced the subsequent cycle of action and reflection that explored deeper understanding of relationships among students, through sociometric measures, and between students and staff via subsequent interviews that we were able to undertake, whose findings will be presented in our forthcoming articles. To ask simple, why and for whom is this article or enquiry interesting and relevant? Certainly, it is interesting to us, the researchers, and perhaps to other practitioners working with, SEBD, children in schools. In this school, the views expressed by the children proved useful in

61



helping the authors on the one hand to understand the processes of increasing the participation and learning of SEBD pupils and, on the other hand would help teachers, in the school and those in other schools who have similar situations and are interested in further understanding their own practices, to reflect on and improve their practice. REFERENCES Allan, J. (2003). Productive pedagogies and the challenge of inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 175–179. Angelides, P., & Michaelidou, A. (2009). The deafening silence: Discussing children’s drawings for understanding and addressing marginalization. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7(1), 27–45. Bragg, S. (2007). Consulting young people: A review of the literature. London: Art Council England. Burke, C., & Prosser, J. (2008). Image-based educational research: Childlike perspectives. In J. G. Knowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 407–420). London, England: Sage. Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2001). Listening to children: The Mosaic Approach. London: National Children’s Bureau. Clark, A., McQuail, S., & Moss, P. (2003). Exploring the field of listening to and consulting with young children. Nottingham, England: Department for Education and Skills. Committee on the Rights of the Child. (1995). Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. UN/CRC/C/15/Add.34 (Geneva, United Nations). Cole, T., Visser, J., & Upton, G. (1998). Effective schooling for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. London: David Fulton Publishers. Cruddas, L. (2001). Rehearsing for reality: Young women’s voices and agendas for change. FORUM, 43(2), 62–66. Department for Education (DfE). (1994). Code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. London: HMSO. Department for Education & Skills (DfES). (2001). Special educational needs code of practice. Annesly, England: DfES. Department for Education & Skills (DfES). (2003a). Every Child Matters. London: The Stationery Office. Department for Education & Skills (DfES). (2003b). Working together: Giving children and young people a say. London: DfES Office. Department for Education & Skills (DfES). (2004). Every Child Matters: Next Step. Annesly, England: DfES. Eliadou, A. (2011). Using children’s drawings to explore barriers to inclusion in Cyprus. In S. Miles & M. Ainscow (Eds.), Responding to Diversity in Schools: An Inquiry-Based Approach. London: Routledge. Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(3), 123–141. Fox, P., & Avramidis, E. (2003). An evaluation of an outdoor education programme for students with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 8, 267–283. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. London: White Plains. Kurawa, G. (2007). Understanding the strategies for creating more inclusive classrooms (Unpublished MPhil Thesis). School of Education. The University of Manchester: Manchester, UK. Kurawa, G. (2010a). The views of students and practitioners of how to include all children in learning and regular classrooms. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Science Journal, 5, 1550–1555. Kurawa, G. (2010b). Teaching diversity in a primary school: examining teachers’ classroom strategies for inclusion. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Science Journal, 5, 1585–1891. Lewis, A. (1992). Group child interviews as a research tool. British Educational Research Journal, 18(4), 413–421.

62


USING DRAWING IMAGES IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Mayall, B. (2008). Conversation with children: Working with generational issues. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: perspectives and practices (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Medcalf, R., Marshall, J., & Rhoden, C. (2006). Exploring the relationship between physical education and enhancing behaviour in pupils with emotional behavioural difficulties. Support for Learning, 21(4), 169–174. Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Morrow, V. (2001). Using qualitative methods to elicit young people’s perspectives on their environments: some ideas for community health initiatives. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 16(3), 255–268. Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) (1992). A framework for the inspection of schools. London: OFSTED. Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). (2000). The annual report of her majesty’s chief inspector of schools, 1998/99. London: The Stationery Office. Rudduck, J., & McIntyre, D. (2007). Improving learning through consulting pupils. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Thomas, G. (2009). How to do your research project: A guide for students in education and applied social sciences. London: Sage. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). (1989). Retrieved from http://www. unicef.org/crc/ Wright, C., Weekes, D., & McGlaughlin, A. (2000). ‘Race’, class and gender in exclusion from school. London: Falmer Press.

63



CHRISTINE LECHNER & FRANZ RAUCH

QUALITY CRITERIA FOR SCHOOLS FOCUSSING ON EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (ESD) A Case Study on Seminars for Teachers in Austria

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT: THE AUSTRIAN ECO-SCHOOLS PROGRAMME – EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABILITY (ECOLOG)

The Austrian ECOLOG schools’ programme is a key action programme and network on the greening of schools and education for sustainability, which was initiated in 1996 by an Austrian team of teachers working on the international project Environment and School Initiatives (ENSI, www.ensi.org ) (Posch, 1999). Since then ECOLOG has become a national support system with the aim to promote and integrate an ecological approach into the development of individual schools based upon an approach developed by the international ENSI network. Within the programme the schools analyse the ecological, technical and social conditions of their environment and, on the basis of these results, define objectives, targets and/or concrete activities and quality criteria, to be implemented and evaluated. Students as well as all the other actors at school should be involved in a participatory way. Collaboration with authorities, businesses and other interested parties is encouraged. The measures concern, among others, areas such as saving resources (energy, water etc.), reduction of emissions (i.e. waste, traffic), spatial arrangement (from the classroom to the campus), the culture of learning (communication, organisational structure) and health promotion as well as the opening of the school to the community. Over 400 Austrian schools with about 90,000 students are currently part of the network. Many others are reached by the web site, CPD seminars and newsletters. The programme is anchored within Austria’s federal states through regional networks with overall central support being ensured by the Ministry of Education Arts and Culture and the FORUM Umweltbildung (FORUM Environmental Education), which operates as a contractor to the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education and Women’s Affairs and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Agriculture and the Environment. This construct facilitates support for the regional teams, maintenance of the website www.oekolog.at, the publication of a monthly electronic newsletter and the provision of a handbook on didactics and teaching methods, a

F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 65–76. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


C. LECHNER & F. RAUCH

database with information and checklists, the organisation of events, a scheme for extra-curricular certification of student achievements and the financing of regional CPD workshops (two per year and province). A standard framework for reporting is provided and, in additions, some writing workshops are offered to assist teachers in writing readable and informative reports. A special recent development is focussing on the (re)orientation of technical and vocational education towards sustainable development and the transition to a green economy. Environmental Education, Health promotion, civic education and gender equality are anchored as cross-curricular principles as well as in subject curricula where appropriate. 110 (out of 690) vocational schools have joined the ECOLOGschool network and 34 have attained the National Environmental Performance Award for Schools and University Colleges of Teacher Education. The overall network structure is as follows: • ECOLOG regional teams have a co-ordinating function in the regions meeting regularly with representatives meeting twice annually at a national level • The ENSI-Teacher team has an advisory and developmental function for the Ministry as well as for ECOLOG regional teams • The scientific advisory board has an advisory function for the Ministry • The Network of representatives from the University Colleges of Teacher Education has an advisory and developmental function within their institutions and concerning CPD for all teachers. On a regional level support is provided by the ECOLOG regional teams. Their major task is to organise further education and training and – closely connected – to promote the exchange of experiences between schools in order to derive maximum benefit from the pool of competence, which is accumulating at the schools. They are constituted of nominees from the regional school boards, the regional University Colleges of Teacher Education, and a member of the ENSI-teacher team. In some provinces, the ECOLOG regional teams have managed to establish co-operations with the Environment Departments of the provincial governments and with NGOs and have also been able to procure some financial support for the network schools. In this setting, the ECOLOG programme has become sustainable and can be seen as an interface between environmental education and school development. (Rauch & Pfaffenwimmer, 2014). SEMINARS FOR HEADS AND COORDINATORS TO ENHANCE QUALITY OF ESD/ECO SCHOOLS

A further support measure is the organisation of seminars for heads and coordinators of ESD/ECOLOG schools. The intention of the seminars is to enhance innovative potentials at the schools. It was the aspect of ESD being “part of everyday school life” or part of the mission

66


QUALITY CRITERIA FOR SCHOOLS FOCUSSING ON ESD

statement for the schools that led the Austrian ENSI Team (http://ensi.bmukk.gv.at/) to think of innovative approaches. Once an initiative has become institutionalised, there is a danger that impetus will be lost and the initiative become the task or even burden of a small group – or at worst one person – rather than a living part of everyday school life. The task was to keep the momentum alive leading on to intrinsically motivated further development through the generation of new ideas or concepts or synergies. (Fritz et al., 2009; Lechner, 2011). Seminar Format and Concept The seminars are open to teachers from all ECOLOG schools across Austria and the general format of the seminars is an approach based on three pillars: • The activities of the ECOLOG schools and the teams at the schools • The “Quality Criteria for ESD Schools” (Breiting, Mayer & Mogensen, 2005) • Action-Research (Altrichter, Feldman, Posch & Somekh, 2008) The timeframe for the seminars is from noon to the following afternoon and the procedure is as follows: 1. Focus on the work at the schools of the participants through the compilation of conditions which support or impede environmental initiatives. 2. New angles on on-going work at participants’ schools through the perspective of the Quality Criteria for ESD Schools (in short “Quality Criteria” (QC)) – aiming at an understanding of the Quality Criteria. 3. Introduction to the ECOLOG work at the schools to be visited. 4. Visits to local schools: broadening viewpoints through getting to know bestpractice schools experienced through the perspective of the “Quality Criteria”. 5. Guided discussions on the experiences at the schools and on the implementation of the Quality Criteria. Formulation of feedback to be presented to representatives from the schools visited. An overview of the concept and also of the seminars held to date is provided in Appendix 1. Process: Testing the Model and How We Learnt The first seminar was organised for ECOLOG-School head teachers in two segments. The target group was heads rather than ECOLOG co-ordinators in order to include the perspectives of school leaders and to clarify involvement and roles. Following an overview of the “Quality Criteria”, participants were confronted with different “Examples” to be matched to specific criteria areas. The aim of the second day was the planning of priorities for the school year anchored on the “Quality Criteria”. The task set to heads was to introduce the QC

67



at an in-school Pedagogical Conference to give impulses for ECOLOG-activities. This was the point at which problems arose; tangible examples of best practice were missing and participants were confused about the aims. The plan for the follow-up seminar was accordingly adapted; at the centre of the seminar was a visit to a local school focussing on concrete implementation of the “Quality Criteria”. The effectiveness of the seminar concept as a whole was confirmed by the high number of participants (20 out of 25) who returned to participate in the second part and the fact that all schools had made progress. Adapting and Transfer of the Seminar Model Based on the recommendations from the heads it was decided to offer seminars to school co-ordinators. The basic elements remained, but from now on a visit to a local school became the core element of the seminar. Participants had the opportunity to see the school, visit classes and speak with teachers. The focus was channelled through the “Quality Criteria” and feedback given to the school-team. The distinctive feature at the lower secondary school visited during the Tyrol seminar in 2009 was, for example, the dimension through which ECOLOG can unfold within in a community typified through the annual flow of the school garden and biotope. During the COMENIUS-GRUNDTVIG Seminar in 2010, the upper-secondary school visited asked the visitors to concentrate on two criteria: • Area of visible outcomes at school & in local community • Area of participation These are areas that the school ECOLOG-team deem to be particularly well developed at the school. As the seminar format develops, the visits demonstrate the ability of teachers to appreciate colleagues’ work; mutual respect leads to further development. Through the “Quality Criteria” it is possible to give feedback as critical friends. Participants are not daunted but inspired by the excellent examples at schools with eco-labelling. Review of Approach As the team considered and developed the model, it became apparent that a revision of the approach to the “Quality Criteria” to include more pertinent examples would be necessary to ensure understanding and effectiveness during the school visits. The COMENIUS-GRUNDTVIG Course on Teacher Competences for ESD gave new impetus, as is often the case when working across borders.

68



For the first time, the “Quality Criteria” were introduced as in Appendix 22; during the activity it was already apparent through the passionate conversations that participants were completely focussed on their own work, communicating the essence to others and to organising thoughts into a new framework. The time was used for core aspects and no longer spent cavilling about the unsuitability or incredibility of the examples. By the second stage, it was apparent that everyone had really understood and internalised the essence of the “Quality Criteria”. The lesson learnt for the team was that examples have to be closer to home; the starting point is always one’s own situation, work and achievements. The stories told by participants made sense within the group and appeared to be the best school stories in the world. Whether they would maintain their credibility taken out of the group and read from a page is an open question. Seminar Development from Summer 2011 to Autumn 2012 The seminar held in the south of Austria in Summer 2011 was attended by 17 participants from all school levels and representation from eight of the nine Austrian provinces. As described above the seminar format had matured and the time was ripe to take a step back and ask questions with a view to learning and moving from one seminar to another. Learning from answers to a questionnaire at the end of the seminar At this point – at the very end of the seminar – 16 of the 17 participants were still present. The following questions were asked: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Which parts of the seminar were relevant? Was the amount of time spent on each section appropriate? How practically useful was the seminar? What advice would you give the team for the next seminar? What advice would you give the team for a follow-up seminar? Further comments

Question 1 focussed on the relevance of content for the target group at the centre of the activity: the participants. They were asked to award points from 5 (highly relevant) to 1 (of little relevance). The results were extremely encouraging in that over 50% of participants considered all sections to be relevant. However, there is clear indication that more focus on the final phase, where the perceived relevance was lowest, is necessary. By this stage, the general atmosphere was one of satisfaction and people were also becoming pre-occupied by train times etc. The message is clear: facilitators must remain active until the end and there is a need to further develop this final stage. Question 2 aimed to find out if the time frame was suitable. Again the answers confirmed the approach whereby the importance of the visits to schools was stressed.

69



Figure 1. Which parts of the seminar were relevant?

Figure 2. Was the amount of time spent on each section appropriate?

There were fifteen responses to Question 3 commending the practical potential of the seminar, and thus stressing the importance of not losing track of school reality. Nine of the fifteen commented on the usefulness of impulses from schools visited for their own work. The usefulness of the Quality Criteria and of ideas on teamwork was also mentioned. Question 4 asked specifically for recommendations for the next seminar. Here the wishes expressed centred on the school visits, practical examples and materials and concrete ideas for projects. This will definitely be taken into account for the planning of future seminars. 70



Question 5 focussed on a potential follow-up seminar, which is a theoretical idea at this stage. However, this would be the ideal situation and a possibility to lead teachers into Action Research on their own projects. The responses concentrating on deeper insights into the work at schools underline the potential. Finally, there was a good response rate to the request for further comments and 13 of 17 took time to answer. The general tenor was very good with references to the good atmosphere, very positive peer exchange, and good organisation. Analytic Discourse as a Tool for Reflection The opportunity to present a poster as the basis for Analytic Discourse (Altrichter et al., 2008) at the CARN Conference in Vienna in November 2011 can be seen as a further opportunity for reflection. The ideas for the poster were first collected within the ENSI team around the questions what is important: Make clear, keep essential. The challenge was to present the essential within 9-minutes. The ensuing Analytic Discourse opened further perspectives and also showed clearly where further clarification is necessary at international level. Firstly, it became clear that there is always a necessity to keep rethinking terminology that we think we understand and a general necessity to set up common understanding and facilitate discourse. Further questions aided thought on content and action. The aim must always be clear for participants, which in turn ties in with experiences made during the seminars and gleaned through feedback. A subsequent question raised the issue of the presentation of practical materials leading to the thought that this might be a possibility to be included in school visits. A follow-up comment: “Perfect! Just what we need to do in Russia!” underlined the potential of transferability of the concept. CURRENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT

The final seminar to date was held at the Pedagogical University Tirol in 2012. The school centre consists of three schools – Primary, Lower Secondary & Special Needs, all of which belong to the ECOLOG network. We now have a framework that has been trialled and analysed. First Seminar Day Following a start-up phase, the focus is on the activities of the schools as well as the esteem for existing activity as the basis for continuation. Analytic Discourse leads to discussions about ECOLOG projects at the schools. From these discussions, the next aim is to find out “What works and what does not work?” The findings are summarized into a list of conditions influencing success. Such samples as below are exhibited during the seminar: 71



Table 1. Fostering and conducive factors of ECOLOG projects as discussed by participants of the ECOLOG seminar Supporting factors for ECOLOG projects – Variety in teams: school students, teachers from all subjects, caretaker, parents – Good communication, no one excluded – Good personal relationships, communication on a personal level – Teams need time to grow – Support from head – Co-ordinator as a catalyst & provider of impulses – Inclusion of ideas from all levels – Resources

Hindering factors for ECOLOG projects – – – – – – – – – –

Co-ordinator working alone Only in certain & limited subjects Bad communication strategies Ideas from team not taken into consideration No support from colleagues No support from head or school authorities Top-down Constant change in teams Expecting too much No resources

In the next phase of the seminar, the Quality Criteria for ESD schools (Breiting, Mayer & Mogensen, 2005) serve to facilitate in-depth discussions on ECOLOG projects at the participants’ schools. The working model used (see Appendix 2) aims at learning, which is based on the collective experience within the group and on a practical example rather than struggling with an abstract model. The day finishes with a presentation of the local schools to be visited by a school representative exemplifying how model projects are carried through at the school. The timeframe provides the opportunity for participants and seminar team to share the evening, which is important for the development of ideas through informal discussions. Second Seminar Day The school visits are organised to give participants choice between different schools, at which the ECOLOG programme is well established. Permission to visit the schools is requested some months prior to the seminar and ECOLOG co-ordinators at these schools are asked to choose specific Quality Criteria as a focus. Following the morning visits to the schools, participants discuss their observations. The underlying approach is to focus discussions on the implementation of the Quality Criteria leading to the reflection of subjective impressions. Feedback on the observations based on the chosen quality criteria is presented to representatives from the schools both orally and in written form. CONCLUDING COMMENTS & OUTLOOK: CHANGING SCENES & TEAM

After seven years’ encouraging experiences, we have a useful framework and a working design. The question now is how to maintain the impetus and increase the 72



relevance for teachers, to combine successful elements with what we have learnt and to suit new situations. The results of the questionnaire carried out at the end of the final seminar in the Tyrol once again reflected the importance of practical input – both during the school visits and practical elements of the seminar. It was also apparent that theory is only appreciated to a certain extent and only when presented within in a suitable format. The message is that seminar teams must continue to focus here; imparting theory is not something that will automatically work. In this case, there were equally high scores for the final stage of the seminar as for other sections indicating that the work done by the team of the final stage had paid off. There was praise for the positive atmosphere created by the seminar team, indicating the essential element of authentic teamwork. On the other hand, there was some criticism of domestic arrangements, quality of refectory food and transport arrangements from Pedagogical University to schools. On the one hand, such comments might appear trivial. On the other hand, domestic arrangements show respect for participants and the importance should not be overlooked. As above, if the opportunity arises, the development of follow-up seminars to encourage and support teachers to carry out Action Research on their work would be a further prospect. Results from this form of CPD would then feed into considerations for quality assurance in the ECOLOG programme and other networks and also into the integration of the Quality Criteria as a framework for ESD into initial teacher education. NOTES 1 2

Eurydice Key Data on Education in Europe 2012. 120: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice p. 9

REFERENCES Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers investigate their work: introduction to the methods of action research. (2nd Rev. ed.). London: Routledge. Breiting, S., Mayer, M., & Mogensen, F. (2005). Quality criteria for ESD-Schools. Guidelines to enhance the quality of education for sustainable development. Vienna, Austria: Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Department of Environmental Education Affairs. Fritz, S., Lackner, E., Lechner, C., & Zimmerhackl, K. (2009). Quality criteria for ESD-Schools: An innovative approach for teacher education in Austria. Vienna, Austria: Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Arts and Culture. Lechner, C. (2011). The development of national and international seminars for ESD. In Proceedings of the CARN Conference 2011 in Vienna. Posch, P. (1999): The Ecologisation of schools and its implications for educational policy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 341–348. Rauch, F., & Pfaffenwimmer, G. (2014). Education for Sustainable Development in Austria. Networking for Innovation. In R. Mather & R. Jucker (Eds.), Schooling for Sustainable Development in Europe. Vienna & New York, NY: Springer (in Print).

73



WEBSITES http://www.oekolog.at/ Accessed 21.7.2012. www.ensi.org Accessed 21.7.2012. http://www.ensi.org/Members/Member_countries/Austria/ Accessed 21.7.2012. Eurydice Key Data on Education in Europe 2012. 120: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/ Accessed 21.7.2012.

74



APPENDIX 1

75



APPENDIX 2

Getting to Know the Q.C. Group 1 • Each group should study 4 of the Quality Criteria in detail. • Your colour is Pink & your criteria are: 1, 2, 7, 9 Step 1 1. Concentrate on the Rationale & the bullet points. 2. Think of experiences from your own work situation to help illustrate the criteria. Within the group you should find at least one example per criterion. 3. Make a mind-map as an aid. 4. Every member of the group should be able to explain the criteria & the examples to the other groups. You have one hour

http://www.mymindmap.net/images/Mind_Map_Template_Mulit_Rnd_small.jpg Step 2 5. Find colleagues from the other groups with the same number. You are now the expert. 6. You should move from mind-map to mind-map. The expert’s job is to explain his/ her mind-map. This phase should be completed within approximately one hour

76


BARBARA LESJAK

UTILIZING ACTION RESEARCH FOR LEARNING PROCESS SKILLS AND MINDSETS Action Research Meets Group Dynamics

INTRODUCTION

Action Research has a long and varied history, leaving distinct traces in Group Dynamics. The discovery of Action Research coincides with the discovery of Group Dynamics. The underlying assumptions, methodological, and didactic principles as well as the basic research attitude of Action Research, as shaped by Kurt Lewin, continue as the leading paradigms of research and teaching. The background and importance for Group Dynamics are discussed in the first part of the paper. Action Research is strongly connected to the learning situation in Group Dynamics, according to the claim that research and learning are supposed to supplement each other. WHY IS ACTION RESEARCH IMPORTANT FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE, ESPECIALLY FOR GROUP DYNAMICS?

Action Research has been established in different working and scientific areas since its initial development. In the German-speaking part this happened mostly because of its utilization in teacher’s advanced training (Altrichter & Posch, 2009), but also because of modified application in the area of process-oriented consulting and organizational development according to the tradition of Ed Schein (Schein, 2003) and in the consulting influenced by the System Theory (Wimmer, 1995). During the last few years we could observe that important paradigms of Action Research, like the participation or transdiscipline approach have been disputed a lot during quality courses of research (Hanschitz, Schmidt & Schwarz, 2009). Action Research changes its appearance, although the basic paradigms are still valid, especially in Group Dynamics (Smith, 2001; König, 2001). “Social research should be one of the top priorities for the practical job of improving intergroup relations.” (Lewin, 1948, p. 202) The focal point is intergroup relations; this focus has been extended to relations of social systems nowadays. Social systems have different levels of complexity, which also depend on their size (Weick, 1965). Group Dynamics as a social science differentiates between individual, pair, triangle relationship, group, organization, networks, society, etc. (Krainz, 2006) In these various social formations there are different forms of social actions respectively. F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 77–85. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


B. LESJAK

Group Dynamics concentrates on these different social dynamics, especially on the important difference between groups and organizations (Schwarz, 2007). Thus, action in groups and organizations is considered a priority in Group Dynamics. Lewin (1948, 1951) put forth some important basic assumptions about social live. He developed a concept of change in social systems (unfreeze, change, freeze) and models that allow groups and organizations to investigate themselves. Some of his guiding principles are still important for Group Dynamics in this context, as well as for the related intervention and consulting sciences: The whole is something else than the sum of its parts. This paradigm is known as ‘Holism’. Lewin (1951) has used Aristoteles’ (2007) Principle of Emergence on social systems in his Concept of Gestalt and in Field Theory (for further information see Erlacher & Lesjak, 2012). One can only explore social systems in which he changes them. Knowledge is only possible when the researcher is involved in the observed system; they generate findings and develop hypotheses by their intervention, which means that the researcher is always learning. Nothing is as practical as a good theory. The main purpose of theory is supporting the understanding of problems in social live. In a methodical and didactic understanding this means that learning starts with an action and the theory will be generated during reflection of said action. Theory should be situation-based and applied for solving the problem at hand. These principles are based on a theory of social systems and processes of change as well as a theory of learning. According to Lewin (1951) learning is first and foremost change, which is always embedded in a social force field. A foundation thesis is that social groups are particularly high-leverage forces for influencing behaviour. The focus is removed from the individual and centred on processes and structures and the emergence phenomena of the social world. His legacy was continued by his students and others; their special focus was on Action Learning – the laboratory method was developed as a specific form of learning in the sense of participatory research and learning. “Action Research provided a model for utilizing scientific methodology in improving processes of practical problem solving. It also provided a model for inducing change by collaborative and scientific means.” (Bradford, Gibb & Benne, 1964, p. 13) The paradigm shift that occurs here − from a technical-rational concept of learning to a social concept of learning − has shaped Group Dynamics research and has produced an elaborate concept of process and intervention (e.g. research areas such as social skills and laboratory learning, Krainz, 1998, 2005). This change of paradigms is elementary for Group Dynamics because the learning is put forward in this case; the focus is on learning as a process of change (individual and collective) (Heintel & Huber, 1978). But this also means that learning is coercively linked with a social happening. 78


UTILIZING ACTION RESEARCH FOR LEARNING PROCESS SKILLS AND MINDSETS

UTILIZING ACTION RESEARCH AND ACTION LEARNING FOR LEARNING PROCESS SKILLS AND MINDSETS

“Action Research is an application of scientific methodology in the clarification and solution of practical problems. It is also a process of planned personal and social change. In either case, it is a process of learning in which attention is centered on the quality of collaboration in planning action and in the evaluation of results.” (Benne, Bradford & Lippitt, 1964, p. 33) This approach from the foundation period of Group Dynamics is still valid for current concepts of Action Research. Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) provide the following description: “Action Research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out… The approach is only Action Research when it is collaborative, though it is important to realise that the Action Research of the group is achieved through the critically examined action of individual group members.” (p. 5) Group Dynamics as a science (Cronin, Weingart & Todorova, 2011) also aim at the collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants. But it is assumed that the capability of collective self-reflection is not an existing precondition, but has to be developed in individual learning settings. Special forms of learning – derived from Lewin’s understanding of learning – have been established methodically: Action Learning (Joyce, 2012): This form of learning is positioned – structurally speaking – between real organizations and own arrangements of learning, in which special problems of organization are analysed and processed. We often find its use in education and post-graduate programs of management education, but also in conjunction with organization development (Pedler & Burgoyne, 2008). The better understanding of such problems should be achieved by “learning by action while studying the case at hand”; the problem-solving competence should be increased as well. The principles and methods of Action Learning are applicable within and without the relevant areas of action respectively. The distance or closeness to the area of action and/or the relevant system can vary – Action Learning can be put into two different categories in this case: Laboratory Learning (Bradford et al. 1964; Krainz, 2005): Learning in a laboratory setting is a special form of Action Learning (Laboratory Method, Benne et al., 1964); the action is still the starting point but it takes place outside of the organization (at universities, colleges, private educational institutions). During open process settings – laboratory experiments – the participants learn from themselves, either as a group (training group) or an organization (organization training). The group or organization themselves are learning subjects of Laboratory Learning, and their capabilities of perception and intervention should be increased, similar to a simulation game (Krainz, 2006). The laboratory as a field situation enables learning close to reality. “Important linkages between the laboratory and the field can be made at unobtrusive points in the experimental setting. Once these similarities exist, generality increases.” (Weick, 1965, p. 254) 79


B. LESJAK

Organizational Learning (Argyris, 1999; Davis, 1996): This form of leaning is positioned closer to the organization than Laboratory Learning. It takes place within the organizations, often in form of consultations or organization development, which’s goal is the implementation of change management. Especially during processes of change there are a number of behaviour-related possibilities of learning, depending on the degree of relevant learning settings being set up (Grossmann & Heintel, 2000). In this context Action Learning is a custom-fit form of learning, directly related to the relevant action; it requires careful supervision on one hand, and a slow and steady leading of the participants towards the new mode of perception and solving of problems on their own – a change of pattern (Antons et al., 2004). The basic principles are the same for all of the forms mentioned here. One can summerise that Action Learning is... … Collaborative and participatory: Learning requires emotional involvement of the participants during the relevant learning and research process. … Self-critical and self-reflective: The ability to observe and analyse your own behaviour as well as the capability of using the self as an instrument are important quality attributes. … Process-oriented and spiral: A basic candidness towards surprises is elementary. Additionally, a general knowledge of different forms of social “formats” and understanding for the reciprocity in social processes is paramount. Interventions are process-oriented; they refer to the context and the process itself. There is a circular process of planning: plan -> act and observe -> reflect -> revise plan -> act and observe. … Emancipatory: The goal of research as well as learning is self-education, which takes place on a rational and an emotional level. In other words the goal as well as the method is a collective self-reflective enquiry. There are some basic assumptions behind this objective: Learning is strongly connected to the idea of participation and research. Learning means changing every time (of social behaviour and structures); this happens via feedback mechanisms. Also the involvement of the researcher/facilitator (according to the various situations) in the researched system is fundamental, because they can only understand the own logic of the system by their own involvement and only this way they can create interventions that are valuable for the system. Participation is therefore not a onesided approach; it also requires the participation of the researcher on the other hand. This assumption originates from Lewin, who stated that only the active participation of the researcher and the ‘objects’ in the research process leads to a common result, which can be socially accepted and thus be effective. AN EXAMPLE: ACTION LEARNING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF KLAGENFURT

The department of “Organization Development and Group Dynamics” at the University of Klagenfurt utilizes Action Learning in various educational programs with various settings. There are classical laboratories for postgraduate programs for 80



Organization Development, as well as Action Learning relating to researching and processing special practical cases. Furthermore, there are social skill seminars for students (“Center for Social Competence and Organizational Learning”), which also use elements of Action Learning. Action Learning in laboratories is a specialization of the department. The laboratory methods developed by the Americans were transferred to organizations, in an adapted form but in principle open to the process (Lobnig & Lesjak, 2010). Today the University of Klagenfurt offers two forms of a laboratory within a framework of several studies – the T-Group (research and learning within groups) and the Organization-Training (research and learning between groups) (Krainz, 2006). A training laboratory is an institutionalized place for learning. The general goal is: Learning how to learn. “It offers “opportunities to improve the quality of membership in various associations and of participation in diverse human affairs. The achievement of this general goal requires that learners understand their internal needs, values, perceptions, and resources.” (Benne et al., 1964, p.15) The goals of learning are (Krainz, 1998; Lobnig & Lesjak, 2010): • Differentiated perceptions of oneself and others; • re-educating the individual towards greater integrity; • Knowledge of the specific dynamics in different social systems and the ability to apply useful interventions in open situations; • also the handling of situations charged with emotions; • Augmentation of social perception, learning about feedback, emotional resilience as well as a greater ability to perceive and to learn from the consequences of their actions through paying attention to their own or other people’s feelings; • Utilization of design and intervention techniques and facilitation of change processes (in small groups and in the larger social structure). Specific process supervising methods and learning settings are used to reach these goals. The focus is on the current phase of the process, generally centered on problems of mutual decision making, leadership and trust, development of self-steeringsystems. The trainers are not taking the roles of moderators or even teachers, but are considered being researching facilitators: It is their task to stimulate the clarification and development of personal, collective values and goals, supporting self-exploration, and advancing it with appropriate instruments, depending on the phase of the process (e.g. Group sociogram or Organization sociogram; Erlacher & Lesjak, 2012; Grimm & Krainz, 2011). Trainers offer different observations of process, make suggestions, and interpret various happenings. They assume a necessary double role as researchers and facilitators, which is checked by continual self-reflection. Finally, the participants shall be encouraged to change from passive consumption to active development and to perceive themselves as researchers and students at the same time to enable them to shape and control their own processes responsibly. There are between 30 and 100 participants from different studies per laboratory; doctoral candidates, postgraduates, and external participants (manager, trainer, 81


B. LESJAK

consultants). A laboratory begins with a nearly open process. Specifications from the staff (group of trainers) are minimal (“trainer’s abstinence” as a didactic approach), which alleviates with time. The initial vacuum of leadership is important because of methodical reasons, since an effective behaviour of the group or organization (action) can only develop in this way. Self-organization is induced from the beginning and is supported by interventions. The typical social dynamics are initiated in groups as well as in organizations; they are observed, discussed, analysed, interpreted, evaluated, and transformed into actions. The learning effects should be sustainable because the participants learn from their own experiences and can develop themselves. This type of learning might be irritating and frustrating as well because most of the participants have not learned to handle social processes in a open way and/or responsibly participate in the relevant process (There are hardly any opportunities for learning social skills at schools and universities in German-speaking countries.) But suddenly a high level of participation is expected – they have to actively develop and decide on social processes. They can try it in a laboratory, get empowered and learn to deal with complex social situations. A training laboratory is an institutionalized place for learning. The general goal is: Learning how to learn. “The training laboratory offers opportunities to improve the quality of membership in various associations and of participation in diverse human affairs. The achievement of this general goal requires that learners understand their internal needs, values, perceptions, and resources.” (Benne et al., 1964, p.15) On the basis of the Americans the further goals of learning are (Krainz, 1998; Lobnig & Lesjak, 2010): • Differentiated perceptions of oneself and others; • re-educating the individual towards greater integrity; • Knowledge of the specific dynamics in different social systems and the ability to apply useful interventions in open situations; • also the handling of situations charged with emotions; • Augmentation of social perception, learning about feedback, emotional resilience as well as a greater ability to perceive and to learn from the consequences of their actions through paying attention to their own or other people’s feelings; • Utilization of design and intervention techniques and facilitation of change processes (in small groups and in the larger social structure). Specific process supervising methods and learning settings are used to reach these goals. The focus is on the current phase of the process, generally centered on problems of mutual decision making, leadership and trust, development of selfsteering-systems. The trainers are not taking the roles of moderators or even teachers, but are considered being researching facilitators: It is their task to stimulate the clarification and development of personal, collective values and goals, supporting self-exploration, and advancing it with appropriate instruments, depending on the phase of the process (e.g. Group sociogram or Organization sociogram; Erlacher & Lesjak, 2012; Grimm & Krainz, 2011). Trainers offer different observations 82



of process, make suggestions, and interpret various happenings. They assume a necessary double role as researchers and facilitators, which is checked by continual self-reflection. Finally, the participants shall be encouraged to change from passive consumption to active development and to perceive themselves as researchers and students at the same time to enable them to shape and control their own processes responsibly. CONCLUSIONS

We have found that the above-mentioned goals can be achieved more or less. Individual speed of learning can be observed as well as partial resistance to learning – some are better adapted to Action Learning than others. We have learned from field reports, seminar papers, and evaluations that the abilities of observation and analysis and the influence on others are largely improved, and the utilization of social techniques is trained. The development of individual and social competences is especially enhanced. One of the most important experiences in life is – according to the graduates – the sustainable realization that there are no manuals or recipes for controlling social processes. A simple utilization of mono-causal input-output mechanisms or hierarchic management models won’t work. A multi-dimensional perception and an open-minded, reflective approach to social phenomenons is much more effective. In summary you can say that the application of the laboratory method has shown that learning and research can hardly be separated, because of the fact that Action Learning means to be a researching (self-)enlightening learning. You can also say that the research principles of Action Research can be transferred to Action Learning. Generally there are differently oriented perspectives, the first asks for researching aspects, the latter focuses on learning, according to the contextualization (more about similarities and differences between Action Learning and Action Research see Pedler & Burgoyne, 2008). Action Learning as well as Action Research are important contributions to the handling of social problems, because they guarantee that the concerned (relevant partner) are participating in their own problem solving, get the possibility to learn, and to generate knowledge about themselves. They also get the chance to improve their social skills as well as their leadership and self-organization capabilities. At the same time science in general profits from the practise-oriented knowledge and is able to contribute to solving social problems in turn. These participative research and learning instruments help bridging the gap between theory and practise and enable to handle the problems where they are encountered – in real life. REFERENCES Altrichter, H., & Posch, P. (2009). Action research, professional development and systemic reform. In S. Noffke, & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 213–225). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

83


B. LESJAK Antons, K., Amann, A., Clausen, G., König, O., & Schattenhofer, K. (2004). Gruppenprozesse verstehen. Gruppendynamische Forschung und Praxis. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed). Singapore: Blackwell Publishing. Aristoteles. (2007). Metaphysik. Schriften zur ersten Philosophie. Stuttgart: Reclam. Benne, K. D., Bradford, L. P., & Lippitt, R. (1964). The Laboratory Method. In L. P. Bradford, J. Gibb, & K. D. Benne (Eds.), T-group theory and laboratory method: Innovation in re-education (pp. 15–44). New York, NY: John Wiley. Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R., & Benne, K. D. (1964). Two Educational Innovations. In L. P. Bradford, J. Gibb, & K. D. Benne (Eds.), T-group theory and laboratory method: Innovation in re-education (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: John Wiley. Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups. Are we there yet? The Academy of Management Annuals, 5(1), 571–612. Davis, D. E. (1996). Organisations-Dynamik: Eine Lernorganisation. In G. Schwarz, P. Heintel, M. Weyrer, & H. Stattler (Eds.), Gruppendynamik. Geschichte und Zukunft (2nd ed) (pp. 171–188). Wien: WUV Universitätsverlag. Erlacher, W., & Lesjak, B. (2012). Soziale Vernetzung: Einheit und Widerspruch. In H. Greif, & M. Werner (Eds.), Vernetzung als soziales und technisches Paradigma (pp. 47–76). Wiesbaden: VS Research. Grimm, R., & Krainz, E. E. (2011). Teams sind berechenbar. Erfolgreiche Kommunikation durch Kenntnis der Beziehungsmuster. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag. Grossmann, R., & Heintel, P. (2000). Vermittlung von Organisationskompetenz. In P. Heintel, & L. Krainer (Eds.), Weiter Bildung? Beiträge zur wissenschaftlichen Weiterbildung aus Theorie und Praxis. iff texte (Vol. 7, pp. 49–60). Wien-New York, NY: Springer Verlag. Hanschitz, R., Schmidt, E., & Schwarz, G. (2009). Transdisziplinarität in Forschung und Praxis. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Heintel, P., & Huber, J. (1978). Aktionsforschung - Theorieaspekte und Anwendungsprobleme. Gruppendynamik. Zeitschrift für angewandte Sozialpsychologie, Sonderdruck, 9, 390–409. Joyce, P. (2012). Action learning – a process which supports organisational change initiatives. Action Learning. Research and Practice, 9(1), 29–36. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed) Geelong: Deakin University Press. König, O. (Ed.). (2001). Gruppendynamik. Geschichte, Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen, Ausbildung. Wien: Profil Verlag. Krainz, E. E. (1998). Kann man soziale Kompetenz lernen? In G. Falk, P. Heintel, & C. Pelikan (Eds.), Die Welt der Mediation. Entwicklung und Anwendungsgebiete eines Interdisziplinären Konfliktregelungsverfahrens (pp. 309–329). Klagenfurt: Alekto Verlag. Krainz, E. E. (2005). Erfahrungslernen in Laboratoriumssettings: Trainingsgruppe und Organisationslaboratorium. In G. Falk, P. Heintel, & E. E. Krainz (Eds.), Handbuch Mediation und Konfliktmanagement (pp. 311–326). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Krainz, E. (2006). Gruppendynamik als Wissenschaft. In P. Heintel (Ed.), betrifft: TEAM. Dynamische Prozesse in Gruppen (pp. 7–28). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. Selected theoretical papers. D. Cartwright (Ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. Selected papers on group dynamics. G. W. Lewin (Ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Lobnig, H., & Lesjak, B. (2010, December). The Organization Laboratory – An experimental setting for learning process skills and mindsets. Paper presented at the M/O/T International Conference on Management Learning. Retrieved from http://www.iff.ac.at/oe/content.php?p=34&lang=mot&nr Pedler, M., & Burgoyne, J. G. (2008). Action learning. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. (2nd ed) (pp. 319–332). London: Sage. Schein, E. (2003). Prozessberatung für die Organisation der Zukunft. Der Aufbau einer helfenden Beziehung. Bergisch-Gladbach: Edition Humanistische Psychologie.

84


UTILIZING ACTION RESEARCH FOR LEARNING PROCESS SKILLS AND MINDSETS Schwarz, G. (2007). Die „Heilige Ordnung“ der Männer. Hierarchie, Gruppendynamik und die neue Rolle der Frauen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Smith, M. K. (2001). kurt lewin: Groups, experiential learning and action research. The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm Weick, K. E. (1965). Laboratory Experimentation with Organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 194–260). Chicago, IL: Mc Nally and Company. Wimmer, R. (Ed.). (1995). Organisationsberatung. Neue Wege und Konzepte. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.

85



ALISON CUTLER

MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN CHANGING TIMES – THE VALUE OF RESEARCH IN CHALLENGING TRADITIONAL TRAINING PRACTICE AND SUPPORTING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

CONTEXT

The UK Government promotes multi-agency, collaborative learning as a way of improving multi-agency working. Failures in the Victoria Climbie and Baby Peter cases prompted Lord Laming (March 2009) to repeat his call for sufficient training for multi-agency workers to safeguard children. However multi-agency learning and training is still failing to achieve these desired outcomes. PARADIGMS

My research followed a model of reflective practitioner research within a constructivist (Creswell, 2003) paradigm. Constructivism is based on the researcher experience of the world and the idea that the world is ‘socially constructed’ (Anderson, 2009). The views and comments of participants are thus of central interest to the constructivist researcher. The idea of social interaction was a crucial part of my thesis that learning together may create a community, which then supports inter-agency working outside the classroom or learning environment. There is an argument which states that if I subscribe to a constructivist view, then I will utilise primarily qualitative methods. Mark (1996) emphasises that in qualitative research reality is viewed as subjective and that the view of the researcher can therefore itself become part of the findings of the research. While my data undoubtedly was in part a reflection of my own interpretation and paradigm, I also ensured that my data was triangulated by using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods. METHODS

The methodology used encompassed a literature review, as well as a two stage practical studies.



A. CUTLER

Literature Review The research considered the literature around inter-agency learning and working, which at the start of the study in 2009 was limited. More recent research such as that of Carpenter et al. (2010) highlighted the value and impact of inter-agency training in encouraging greater sharing of practice. My research also showed this to be the case. Practitioners shared their experiences and learning with others and the networks created in the learning environment continued beyond the classroom. I would argue it is therefore possible for learning to influence integrated working through the development of relationships created between individuals who are in a collaborative inter-agency learning environment. I also explored Wenger’s (1999) ideas of communities of practice and Engestrom’s (2001) work around challenge and ‘knotworking’ and questioned if they were mutually exclusive. In fact, my research showed that there is a place for both, and that challenge is an integral part of developing a learning community and community of practice, as well as something that arises from an active and well functioning community. Members of a thriving community feel empowered and able to challenge others if they feel they are respected professionally. This combination of both difference and challenge as well as ‘community’ is also further reinforced by Wilmot (1995) who argues that differences should be valued and that the key is to improve dialogue between professionals to encourage the formation of a shared commitment to finding a solution. Learning environments where professionals come together therefore provide an opportunity to improve such dialogue and thus potentially have a positive impact on integrated working practices. Stage One and Two Studies The subsequent two stage studies involved practitioners and tested a model I had developed of the skills, behaviours and knowledge needed to create effective interagency working practices (the SBK model see Appendix 1). My proposal was that if this model contains the key skills, knowledge and behaviours for effective multi-agency working, then the learning activity or training programme to support multi-agency working should be designed and evaluated against these criteria. Stage One Study The stage one study involved observing a group of multi-agency participants on a training session, the subject of which was multi-agency working in the field of child protection for 0 – 5 year olds. I observed the group and gathered evidence using a wide variety of means, which I reviewed and analysed against the SBK model. 88


MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN CHANGING TIMES

The group was formed of practitioners from different agencies including social care, nursery staff and childminders. The course was led by a trainer and included various group activities and discussions. My key aim was to use a wide range of techniques, which would ensure some objectivity in the findings. These techniques were used around a particular case study which was a ‘real life’ training session i.e. not set up for the purpose of the study. There were advantages to using such a case study in that I hoped that the delegates would behave as they would do without a researcher being present. There was however the challenge of being the ‘insider’ or the ‘outsider’, especially as I was one of the facilitators. Would individuals open up to me if they felt I was an ‘insider’ i.e. part of, I would argue, their professional ‘community of practice’ or would it be better to be an ‘outsider’ to this community and therefore removed in some way from their conversations? Mercer (2006) argues that there are advantages and disadvantages to both being and insider and outsider but that ultimately research falls along a continuum with the researcher undertaking both roles at different points of the study. I felt I had both roles, and this linked to me being present on the day both as a professional and as researcher; my ‘outsider’ role as a researcher could become ‘insider’ if my professional judgement and knowledge was called upon as part of the session. My ‘insider’ knowledge of the subject area also meant I had to be aware of making judgements based on bias, hence the need for triangulation of the research data. Qualitative Methods Used in Stage One Study I used a mixture of methods: • Semi-structured interviews with the trainers • Tape recordings of one small discussion group at differing points during the day so I could listen to the conversations at a later date and assess how the group interacted as the day progressed. • Observations of the training group as a whole to observe the dynamics of a larger group. • Written evaluations from participants. Findings The stage one study highlighted that a training session contained levels of complexity about how professionals interact and work together. The evidence showed a shift in attitudes and this arose from the behaviours and skills of those present. Challenge also created a solution i.e. everyone in the room finally reached agreement about the purpose of the Common Assessment Framework. I believe this consensus was only possible through animated debate amongst the whole group, and having an environment in which participants felt able to share ideas and challenge each other. Engestrom (2001) argues that there is a need for conflict in teams to generate new ideas and ways of working. I believe that this is what I observed on the 89


A. CUTLER

day – consensus was achieved to solve problems by debate, argument, sharing of practice and discussion. I also asked myself if a community of practice developed on that day as there were many different viewpoints. Wenger (1999) maintains that in a community of practice the sharing of ideas, development of relationships and learning from each other can be more significant than the content of the training itself – the community creates therefore a sense of ‘social learning’. I would thus argue that in the stage one study a community of practice did come together to the extent that the group continually shared ideas and practice and showed a willingness to learn from each other. The importance of building relationships as a vehicle for the learning was also evident as the participants seemed to learn the most from each others’ stories and ideas rather than simply what was being said by the trainer. Further evidence of this ‘learning community of practice’ can be found in the written evaluations of the day. The group cited how much they had learned from debate and sharing of ideas and experiences. The importance of reflective practice as a powerful learning tool was thus reinforced. The group developed over the day as delegates became more comfortable with each other and began to challenge and participate more in the discussions. This is also a key ingredient in the formation and growth of a community of practice. Some individuals were confident enough in their role to challenge the trainer and others shared their own experiences – this was especially evident in the latter part of the day. One attendee also commented that other factors can impact upon learning e.g. what is going on in life for that individual outside the training room and that this can affect how people interact and learn. This is also in my view an important factor to consider when evaluating the learning for individuals. Such issues can impair the learning experience for individuals rather than there being any problem with the set up or running of the training course. The study also highlighted some gaps with the initial draft of the SBK model. These were: • Learning from sharing practice and stories • Reflection • Coming to consensus from conflict. These omissions were incorporated into the final version of the model. Conclusions of the Stage One Study The stage one study met its objectives in terms of testing out research and data gathering methods and the SBK model. The qualitative methodology was effective as it was so wide ranging. It enabled me to gather a wealth of information which helped further enhance my understanding of the impact of multi agency learning on practitioners and also further develop my initial ideas about the SBK model. 90



I concluded from the stage one study that the model can be used as an effective tool and overall framework to ensure that all essential aspects of inter-agency working are included in the training session. The SBK model provides a framework, rather than a hard and fast set of criteria. The categories are fluid, as my analysis showed, with skills and behaviours being open to interpretation and each moving into each other – one piece of data for example showing many different things e.g. an ability to facilitate a group or team discussion showing both a communication skill and a leadership behaviour. I believe it is the overall framework that matters and the model is a way of organising the experience. I would also argue that the behaviours and skills are what enable the culture change towards inter-agency working to happen, and not just simply learning the knowledge. This was underpinned by my observations that where there was a shift in participants’ attitudes, this had taken place by actively engaging and challenging each other. I could for example observe collaborative and facilitative skills, with some participants encouraging others to participate – comments such as: ‘Yes, you are right, how does everyone else feel about this?’ encouraged the group to share ideas and learn from each other. The next stage of the research was to measure the transfer of learning to practice by seeking the view of practitioners who had undertaken such training programmes. This also included follow up questionnaires to those who had participated in the stage one study. Stage Two Study Stage two involved gaining specific data from participants and following the progress of those who attended the initial training event observed in stage one. This was important as it meant I was able to contact delegates eight months from the original session to find out what they had learned and what had stayed with them. This post-course data collection and analysis was a new and important addition to the body of research in this area as it was something that Carpenter et al. (2010) had found difficult to gather as part of their research. A written questionnaire was used to gain specific data. There were six questions designed to explore with participants if they felt inter-agency training was valuable in supporting inter-agency working and how this might best be achieved. The stage two study therefore became a refining and ‘funnelling’ of the stage one data. Methodology The questionnaire allowed qualitative data to be gathered based on the delegates’ experiences. It also gave rise to quantitative data such as numbers of responses to a particular question. The combination of such data enabled patterns and trends to be observed. In this way, the data could be used to validate or reject the themes that had arisen from the stage one research. 91


A. CUTLER

The questionnaire was given to two groups in July 2010: • Delegates attending an inter-agency training course that I also observed. The feedback was immediate in the questionnaires, as these were completed straight after the event. (Group A) • Delegates who had attended the training course in November 2009 that I had observed for the stage one study. (Group B) In total, 23 responses were received from police officers, teachers, nurses, nursery staff, children’s centre managers, lawyers, therapists, social workers and probation staff. Overall Findings and Trends from the Questionnaires Inter-agency training and learning supporting inter-agency working practices. There was a consensus of opinion across answers to the questionnaires. 100% of respondents agreed that inter-agency learning can support inter-agency working, with a request for more learning events to continue, along with additional requests for networking events. 90% of respondents agreed that the courses helped or would help individuals to work more effectively together, but some caution was cited. They expressed that the course was not enough on its own i.e. ‘it is only part of a wider picture’, with professional ‘cultures’ also being cited as having an impact. While organisational ‘barriers’ were outside the scope of this research is it nevertheless important to recognise that such ‘cultures’ can impact on individuals putting their learning into practice. Knowledge of process and expectations inform us but still does little to tackle various professional cultures which can present obstacles to co-operation in its fullest sense. (Social Worker) There was also agreement across the skills, behaviours and knowledge delegates felt were important for inter-agency working. For example, 23% of the total responses stressed that effective communication was the most important factor for working together. In addition, 22% of responses cited knowledge and understanding of others’ roles as one of the most important factors for working together. Learning /training methods. The data from the questionnaires showed agreement across all professions on the type of learning activity delegates found the most useful. While some credit was given to direct input from the trainer, it was the indirect influence of the trainer in facilitating group work that received the most positive comments. The discussions, sharing ‘stories’ and networking were cited as the most useful, not least of which because they encouraged delegates to learn about each others’ roles. Differing perspectives from differing professions. When comparing the responses, patterns across different professional groupings emerged. This is important as it 92



means that although commonalities across responses from the delegates as a whole can be taken into consideration when designing training courses, there is also a need to recognise and respect differences in order to engage delegates. These differences in approach seem also to reflect the ‘culture’ in different agencies and also some views that I as the researcher held about how we might perceive different roles. These differences are reflected in the responses and patterns below: The police responses in terms of requirements for effective inter-agency working were the ability to make decisions and confidence and knowledge about child protection procedures. This could be seen to be reflecting the requirements of this roles i.e. the need for process to be correct when dealing with legal and potentially criminal issues. Nurses particularly mentioned being sociable as a key skill for inter-agency working. They showed a people focus in their responses when they concentrated on understanding how others work – as a researcher I questioned if this was a reflection of the assumptions I held around the ‘caring’ personalities I would expect in nurses as a ‘caring profession’? One nurse highlighted this ‘caring’ side in her response agreeing that learning together can support inter-agency working: (the course allowed me to) …meet different people, learn about and sympathise with their role, gives you an opportunity to learn what you could do in your role to make jobs easier for others. Teachers and nurses also mentioned ‘getting to know people behind the role’. This was cited as useful in developing ongoing working relationships, again focusing on individuals and building relationships rather than procedural issues. Embedding learning – eight months on… The responses from Group B were particularly important as delegates had had eight months to reflect on the programme and the learning they had retained. These responses would therefore indicate what had been embedded from the inter-agency training programme they had attended. I could also match these responses to the initial study to see if findings from stage one, especially the development of a community of learning and practice really did continue beyond the training room. The key findings were as follows: Delegates stressed the importance of feeling like a ‘professional’ and being treated as such on the training session – it was felt by one delegate that this made a considerable difference to her learning, especially as she had in the past considered herself to be of a lower standing than for example health visitors. This led to a feeling of greater confidence in her role and status: It made me feel that we had an important part to play in the services offered to children and I was also referred to as a professional. Prior to that I felt that only EPs (educational psychologists), HVs (health visitors) etc. fell under this umbrella. (Nursery Manager) 93


A. CUTLER

The training was felt to provide an environment for a common purpose by bringing people together with one delegate commenting that the ‘commonality of training removes barriers’. Individuals on the training made new contacts which have continued since the training and knowledge gained on the programme has been put into practice. Delegates mentioned the importance of the learning environment i.e. the trainer being facilitative assisted learning. There was some difficulty in dealing with challenge and heated debate. One delegate expressed that she found the discussions and debates difficult at times this was linked to her feeling of not playing an equal part in the discussions. The focus from all respondents was on the contacts made, the impact on their status by being treated with respect and all being viewed as ‘equals’. This was expressed by one of the delegates as: I believe that the effectiveness of a working relationship / partnership is heavily dependent on individuals or agencies attitudes. It is imperative that there is mutual respect for one another’s roles as well as their skills and knowledge, regardless as to levels of qualifications. (Children’s Centre Manager) RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS

Reinforcement of the SBK Model as Both a Reflection of Practice and a Framework for Developing and Evaluating Training and Learning The responses from the questionnaires closely matched what was already contained in the SBK model from the stage one and literature study, with communications skills and professional behaviour appearing particularly regularly across the responses. In summary, the model (Appendix 1) is now a comprehensive reflection of the skills, knowledge and behaviours needed to work in an inter-agency way. It can therefore be used as a framework against which training can be evaluated, as well as to design the training or learning intervention. This is achieved by ensuring that the skills, behaviours and knowledge are built in as part of training course and the evaluation process considers how to measure these as part of the effectiveness of the learning. Development of Communities The literature review suggested that a community could be developed in the classroom which could then continue beyond the training session. The two stage study reinforced these findings. The commonalities across the SBK responses, the agreement from delegates that the most effective learning method was that of indirect input from the trainer which facilitated discussion and sharing practice and the sense of a ‘commonality of purpose’ in the training room all point towards the development of a community of practice coming from a ‘community of learning’. The importance of this is to recognise when designing learning activities that the 94



development of such a community is what embeds the learning outside the training room. The development of such a community was also shown to be useful in creating wider links and networks. This would also indicate that locally based training and learning events could be beneficial as practitioners could create networks with other local practitioners with whom they are likely to work. Sense of ‘Professionalism’ While I have argued that this research shows that communities are developed in the classroom, this does not mean that all practitioners share the same viewpoints. Indeed the SBK model is flexible enough to encompass differing views on the importance of each characteristic for example, depending on the profession. As was seen in this research the police for example focused often on process and the ability to make decisions, whereas nurses felt that having social skills were important in inter-agency working. A real sense of what it means to be ‘professional’ became evident from the questionnaire responses – delegates defined this as being treated with respect, understanding each other and treating each other as equals. Understanding Roles The importance of understanding others’ roles and viewpoints was stressed by a number of delegates. All felt that this was important for ongoing development of working relationships. Impact on Training Design and Delivery The impact of recognising differing viewpoints and differing roles is that in designing training or learning interventions, there needs to be a recognition that there cannot be a ‘one size fits all’. The training must allow different viewpoints to be expressed in different ways. While potentially more challenging for the trainer to manage, such interaction and expression is essential if delegates from different professions are to be engaged in the learning and feel that they each have a valid contribution to make to the debates, discussions and sharing of practice. These individual relationships continuing beyond the classroom can ensure that inter-agency practice is supported and it is essential therefore that the community is encouraged to develop as part of the training. Questionnaire responses showed that the most useful part of the programme was indirect input from the trainer. However, it is clear that the trainer is important in creating an environment of mutual respect and encouraging debate and discussion rather than simply providing information. This sharing of practice amongst the ‘community’ of learners is crucial to learning and indeed the facilitative nature of the trainer was cited as key benefit for Group B respondents: 95


A. CUTLER

The delivery style of the facilitators was so important as they also showed a genuine interest as to the views of the participants. Audience participation was encouraged as well as providing sufficient times for focused and non focused opportunities to network and share ideas. (Children’s Centre Manager) Challenging Ideas/Conflict Generating Debate The training or learning session should not aim to create one homogenous community, but recognise the value of diverse approaches in order to find new approaches and more effective ways of working. It is from these differences that solutions and learning can be created. This research revealed the importance of challenge and conflict to reach a consensus. The findings also identified that there can be difficulties inherent in wanting to gain a consensus through integrated learning and working while also recognising and respecting professional differences. This was expressed thus by a Group B delegate: Sharing practice through discussions was difficult and a little strained at times, especially as a couple of practitioners on my table had a completely different idea to me of good practice. I struggled to understand their opinions and was shocked at some of the things they discussed. (Nursery Manager) The evidence from my research therefore shows that learning comes from a mixture of collaboration, debate and appropriate challenge. However, in view of this, the skill set of the trainer also has to be reviewed. The traditional role of ‘chalk and talk’ will not facilitate discussions and debate – the trainer thus moves from a role of teacher to facilitator and one who encourages participants to feel able to express their professional opinions so that new solutions can be found. This is possible if participants are willing to consider options expressed by others and work collaboratively to create solutions. The question at the start of the research was to ask if inter-agency collaborative learning could support inter-agency working between professionals. I believe that this research has provided evidence to show that it can, if the learning environment is one in which a learning community can be formed, which then has the potential to continue beyond that learning environment. The development of such a community allows practitioners to create networks and contacts with others from different agencies. These contacts and relationships at an individual level can support future co-operation and inter-professional and inter-agency working. RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

This research offers the following recommendations: • A skills, behaviours and knowledge (SBK) framework for collaborative working can assist with the design and evaluation of inter-agency learning helping to embed and encourage a move away from ‘silo’ working (Appendix 1). 96



• Inter-agency, collaborative learning is valuable in helping to create communities that subsequently develop outside the classroom to encourage professionals to work together. It is thus important to ensure that the learning environment is one in which such relationships can be developed. • A fundamental change in the role of the trainer to that of a facilitator who encourages participation and sharing of experience and stories as part of the learning programme. This sharing of practice supports reflective learning, potentially opening up new possibilities for improving practice and ways of working. • There is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach when designing inter-agency learning programmes. There is a need to create a balance between encouraging different views to be discussed and challenged while at the same time creating a common purpose and goal. This common purpose is what ties the learning community together and what then allows this to develop into a longer-term community of practice in which individuals can work together. • Trainers and facilitators need to review, notice (Mason, 2002) and question their own practice and be prepared to try new ideas and promote challenge and debate as part of the training. Trainers can only move others out of silo thinking if they are prepared to challenge their own ideas about learning. In short, facilitators must develop their own reflective practice to encourage others to do the same. IMPACT OF THE RESEARCH – THE FUTURE

This research makes a valuable contribution to the growing body of knowledge around inter-agency collaborative learning. The ideas it presents are ones which are based on robust evidence, taking into account the views of practitioners. The recommendations offered are ones which could potentially be implemented across any area where inter-professional working is required as the skills, knowledge and behaviours are generic and can be adapted to suit a particular working environment. The impact of this research has already been to shape and develop training practice. By moving the focus of learning programmes beyond simply the transfer of knowledge to ones which encourage practitioners to make connections with others from different professional backgrounds, professional silos can be dismantled. It has also served as a challenge to traditional training practice, asking each of us to reflect on our own skills knowledge and behaviours and question our own professional ‘silos’. Also, to understand that as a ‘trainer’ we have a responsibility to create a learning environment which encourages the exploration of new ideas and ways of working to improve professional practice and make a lasting impact on the delegates. While I have been able to already influence and change practice around inter-agency learning through my own work, I also recognise that my future role will be to continue to support others in reflecting on their own work as part of their learning. My ideas already provoke debate whenever I present them. What is exciting for me is that my model has already helped new ways of training to emerge. For example, 97


A. CUTLER

trainers are using the model to design their courses – they are incorporating new training styles and encouraging debate and the sharing of stories by delegates and creating opportunities for local safeguarding practice networks and communities to develop. Trainers talk of their training being ‘transformed’ and practitioners suddenly becoming more engaged and willing to participate in the learning. They also report that this has helped practitioners better network and co-operate with others, which in turn has had a positive impact on their direct work with children, young people and their families. Equally however, I have met trainers who are not willing to change and this represents a challenge for the future – how can we encourage others to move out of their ‘silos’ if we are not able or willing to do this ourselves? This unwillingness to change perhaps represents an attitude that trainers view themselves as ‘experts’, whereas in a community of practice, delegates become their own trainers to a certain extent by learning from each other. The expertise of the trainers becomes therefore not just their own knowledge, but in their ability to harness and encourage others to share their ideas. A question that remains is how effective this new way of training will be in terms of improving outcomes for children, young people and their families in the longer term. This research showed that the inter-agency learning has already had some positive impact on supporting practitioners to create new working relationships with other professionals and thus improve the way families are supported. However a longer-term evaluation of training is needed by all those involved in workforce development to ensure that training and learning continues to encourage, support and embed such positive outcomes. The question also of online learning is one that should be considered – how can we create effective ‘virtual communities of practice’ in the future? My own research and work in this area continues and I continue to develop learning in a way that engages practitioners by creating social learning environments. I have also started to introduce this for managers and at organisational level so that organisations themselves become communities of practice – encouraging learning at all levels. In conclusion, this research can help to ‘bring a different world into existence’ but only if those of us responsible for workplace learning are willing to challenge ourselves. REFERENCES Anderson, V. (2009). Research methods in human resource management (2nd ed.). London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Carpenter, J., Hackett, S., Patsios, D., & Szilassy, E. (2010). Information from outcomes of inter-agency training to safeguard children: Final report to the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department of Health. Department for Children Schools and Families. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

98


MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN CHANGING TIMES Cutler, A. (2011). Can collaborative, inter-agency learning support the development of inter-agency working relationships between practitioners? (MA research paper). University of Hertfordshire: England, UK. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. Laming, Lord. (2009). The protection of children in England: A progress report. London: The Stationery Office. Mark, R. (1996). Research made simple: A handbook for social workers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London, New York,NY: Routledge Falmer. Mercer, J. (2006). The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: Wielding a double-edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 1–17. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities Of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wilmot, S. (1995). Professional values and interprofessional dialogue. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 9(3), 257–266.

APPENDIX ONE

A SKILLS, BEHAVIOURS AND KNOWLEDGE MATRIX A comprehensive framework for training design and evaluation Skills

Behaviours

Knowledge

• • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• Values and principles of Inter- agency working • Policies and Procedures • Common Assessment Framework • Who to contact • Understanding own and others’ work roles

• • • • •

Team work Making judgements Assertiveness Challenge Form effective working relationships Communication Sharing practice and ‘stories’ Reflective practice Listening Articulate

Professional ‘being’ Collaborative approach Tolerate differences Respect for each other Confidence in own role Honesty and integrity Reliability Child centred

Taken from: Cutler, A. (2011). Can collaborative, inter-agency learning support the development of interagency working relationships between practitioners? (MA research paper, University of Hertfordshire)

99



ELISABETH LANGER, LEOPOLD MATHELITSCH & VERONIKA RECHBERGER

SYNERGISTIC COOPERATION OF SCHOOL-BASED ACTION RESEARCH WITH UNIVERSITY-BASED DIDACTIC INVESTIGATIONS

INTRODUCTION

In his opening lecture of the 2011 CARN conference in Vienna, Ingo Eilks introduced participatory action research (PAR) as a systemic framework ideally suited for practice improvement and curriculum development in schools on the one hand and didactic research in science education on the other (Eilks, 2011; see also Eilks & Ralle, 2002). He pointed out that research on science didactics performed at universities is often both aloof regarding the problems dealt with and neither ready nor capable to implement its results in schools. At the same time, school development activities lack a research-based foundation and evaluation. PAR can link the two fields of action and bring about mutual benefit. The thematic program “Competencies in Mathematics and Science Teaching” within the Austrian support system IMST (2011) can be regarded as a good example of efficient cooperation between school-based PAR and scientific research in the manner outlined by Eilks. The project activities described in this report have to be performed within one academic year, which is the lowest possible time limit for PAR, owing to their being linked to a thematic program within the umbrella program IMST, which has been supporting one-year-school-projects since 2000. The main objective of the thematic program consists in the support of the professional development of teachers. The second focus of the program refers to traditional didactic research: The entire program and/or special aspects of it have to be evaluated. Besides, a combination of PAR with traditional research is intended: The output of the teachers’ action research constitutes the basis and data set for traditional research, and the results of this university based investigations are made available to the teachers in order to support their further development so that an improvement cycle is generated. IMST AND THE THEMATIC PROGRAM “COMPETENCIES IN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING”

Thematic programs are part of the initiative IMST (2011), which has originally been founded to raise the quality of mathematics and science teaching in Austria. Thematic F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 101–107. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


E. LANGER, L. MATHELITSCH & V. RECHBERGER

programs are supposed to serve two purposes, to support school projects and to combine them with didactic research. Teachers can apply for a one-year project by submitting an application. The project applications undergo a reviewing process, and after approval get support in different ways: The teachers receive a certain amount of money for the execution of the project; teams of supervisors assist the teachers in their work on the basis of workshops and individual consultancy. A final report about the project activities and evaluation has to be handed in by the teachers. The thematic program “Competencies in Mathematics and Science Teaching” is carried out by the Regional Center for Physics Didactics in Styria in cooperation with didactic centers of other subjects. In 2010/2011, 22 school-projects were allocated to this program, 2011/2012 23 projects have been approved. Of the 22 projects which started in the first year, 21 were finished as well as 21 in the period of the second year. The didactic research is related to the topic of the thematic program, namely the development of competencies in mathematics and science teaching. We want to find out how teachers deal with competence models in practice: How do teachers adopt these models and how do they apply them in their projects? How do they define mathematical and/or scientific competence on the part of their pupils? Which problems arise in practice? Which assistance and guidance do they need? In the first year we grouped the projects according to the school level and to the subjects: 7 were related to science teaching in primary schools, 5 to mathematics, 6 to science subjects in lower secondary, and 4 to science subjects in upper secondary. Consequently, the topics in each group were very diverse, which made both an orientation towards competencies and an evaluation difficult. Therefore we arranged the projects of the next year according to special competencies: observation (5 projects), measurement (5), language (5), argumentation (6), (cf. table 1, two of the projects that had originally been approved of were not performed, so that the table shows 21 projects). As can be seen in the last chapter, this strategy was much more effective. Table 1. Overview of the projects of 2011/2012: title, school level, correlation to a competence Title

Institution

Focus

1

Science workshop for pupils with special needs

Lower Secondary Learners with special needs

Observation

2

Developing science-related competence in social and environmental studies lessons

Primary school

Observation

3

Observation as basis of science experiments

Lower secondary

Observation

4

Social and environmental studies made interesting – hands on experiments for pupils

Primary school

Observation

Continued

102


SYNERGISTIC COOPERATION

Table 1. Continued Title

Institution

Focus

5

Doing experiments according to the standard model of competencies. Comparison of three grades

Lower secondary

Measurement

6

Free space on Fridays

Primary school

Observation

7

Science in everyday life – cosmetics

Lower secondary

Argumentation

8

Cross linking energy and environment in science education

Lower secondary

Argumentation

9

Experiencing a biotope in the Rhine delta

Lower secondary

Argumentation

10

The classroom as a centre of excellence

Lower secondary

Argumentation

11

Timeline of mathematics

Higher secondary Vocational school

Argumentation

12

Chemistry in everyday life: preparation of basic products in class

Lower secondary

Argumentation

13

Practical experience with written maths problems to promote mathematical skills

Primary school

Language

14

“We try it weekly – another year”

Primary school

Language

15

From the summersault to the domain of numbers – experiencing space and time as a prerogative of mathematical understanding

Primary school

Language

16

Narrative didactics as a means to promote subject-related language competence

Higher secondary

Language

17

One world – my world

Primary school

Language

18

Electricity and electronics: from physics experiments to self-made tools

Lower secondary

Measurement

19

Physical experiments at zero gravity

Higher secondary

Measurement

20

Physics education in self-study

Lower secondary

Measurement

21

Cross-curricular, competence-orientated instruction of maths and physics in the lower secondary

Lower secondary

Measurement

COOPERATION OF SCHOOL-BASED PROJECTS ON SUBJECT-RELATED LANGUAGE COMPETENCE WITH A SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROJECT

Two projects from the first year (2010/2011) were closely related both regarding topics and conditions. They dealt with the role of language competence in mathematics and science and were performed at the same school – a lower and higher secondary in Vienna with an exceptionally high proportion of second language learners. The 103



projects were called “Subject-related linguistic competence in mathematics and science teaching” and “Subject-specific linguistic competence in bilingual science teaching” (with English as foreign language). The first one was performed in the lower secondary in the subjects mathematics, biology and chemistry and the second one in upper secondary in biology and chemistry. Two female teachers worked in both projects, but were each responsible for one of them (Marsik, 2011; Tausig, 2011). The hypothesis of the lower secondary project was that working with languagefocused tasks and giving adequate language support would enhance students’ understanding and retention of the topics dealt with, as well as their motivation. The upper secondary project was based on the thesis that by introducing a foreign language in content-based subjects language awareness of both teachers and learners is raised, which leads to a better understanding of the concepts discussed (Langer & Neumann, 2012). The research question was how the task to write an article for simple English Wikipedia would influence the process of the students’ “negotiation of meaning” (Aikenhead, 1996). The results of both projects were partly based on video analyses, and this is where the cooperation between school and university came in. The university project in question has been performed at the Didactic Center of Humanities of the University of Graz (FDZ, 2010). The investigation has aimed at the establishment of a theoretical basis for a teacher training focusing on a diagnosis of language problems in content-based subjects and a subsequent change in methods. In order to design a tool for the analysis of the use of language in lessons of different subjects a large number of video data were collected. The analysis questionnaire was established by an iterative process using video data and transcripts. The two school projects tuned in perfectly well with the scope of the scientific investigation. In fact, the lessons recorded in these projects furnished numerous examples of good practice, which proved of high value for the investigation of the Didactic Center of Humanities. Parts of these videos have already successfully been introduced in modules of teacher training. Regarding the teachers’ research questions, the video material helped prove their hypotheses: in the lower secondary project the recordings were highly suitable for qualitative observation, showing an exceptionally high commitment and performance of the pupils. The upper secondary project used video transcripts to analyze the students’ negotiation of meaning with respect to complex chemical concepts like activation energy and catalysis. It could be demonstrated that the nature of the tasks supported an intensive discussion leading to a better understanding of the concepts. Thus, the teachers were not only provided with the data they needed for their projects and reflective papers (Marsik, 2011; Tausig, 2011). Moreover, the videos in themselves and the written feedback by the university project team constituted helpful information for them regarding their general professional development. In addition, they could establish an ongoing cooperation with the university experts. 104



A UNIVERSITY-BASED PROJECT ON EXPERIMENTAL COMPETENCIES OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

This project was university-based and part of a diploma thesis (Lugitsch, 2011). On the other hand, it was performed in close collaboration with teachers. The aims and the content of the research project have been introduced to and discussed with teachers, who also cooperated in taking the data. Didactic research in the past years has shown that experimental work by students does rarely serve its initial purpose to enhance students’ understanding of the problems and problem solving methods in science. In particular, too many experiments have been done by the teachers themselves as yet. If students work in labs, they very often just execute recipes without having an insight into the scope of the task. They do not have to plan experiments and, in general, there is very little independent work (Tesch, 2005). In contrast, competence models show a broad range of different activities that the students could perform (Schreiber, Theyßen & Schecker, 2009). The competence models of Germany (Kultusminister, 2005), Switzerland (EDK, 2011), and Austria (Bifie, 2011) are very similar with regard to these activities. Out of this discrepancy, the following research questions were formulated: How many different competencies do Austrian students show in their experimental work in physics lessons? How competent are they regarding the different tasks of an experiment? The project design included video recording of experimental lessons in five projects. The videos were then analyzed by checking to which extent the students exhibited competence in the different activities. The competence level was also cross-checked with the reports the students had to write. The main outcome of the study was that students focus frequently only on the execution and documentation of experiments, but at least they do show competencies in these areas. Much less competencies are demonstrated in the work before the actual experiment (design of the apparatus) and also afterwards (analysis and interpretation of the data). A comparison of the results of the five different projects reveals that a broader range of competencies could be addressed during students’ experiments. This was in one case achieved by posing a very open problem (students were responsible for most of the work) (Hofer, 2011), in the other case by carefully designed experiments combined with appropriate questions (Trimmel, 2011). CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS

As part of their project, teachers hand in reports by the end of the school year, containing a description of their projects, the intended aims, and their course of action as well as an evaluation which is focused on their aims. For the cross-case analysis, the reports were analyzed regarding aims and achievements (focused on competencies), evaluation methods, and gender-related results. In addition, interviews (mainly via phone-calls) were taken with one representative of each project. 105



The cross-case analysis of the first year showed the following results: In their project proposals, teachers named the objectives they wanted to achieve. During the work on the project and after discussions with coaches, some aims were specified or modified. Teachers’ goals focused on the level of attitudes and competencies of the students. In summary, mathematical, scientific, linguistic and fundamental competencies were addressed in 14 project reports. Unfortunately, not all of them had employed actionresearch supported evaluations. For those who had done so, a questionnaire was the tool that was used most by teachers (9). In four projects, teachers worked with interviews. Three teachers videotaped their lessons and analyzed the video recordings later on. Three projects used tests and exams to gain information about their students’ performance. In another three projects, teachers collected students’ journals or texts and analyzed them. Both, analyses of audio recording and observation of the students were done in two projects. Feedback from students and colleagues was gathered in different ways by five teachers. One project also involved external experts. Results from interviews via phone with one member of each project of the second year give a different picture: Due to the orientation and naming of the groups according to competencies, the role of competencies was much more visible. Teachers focused more on students’ promotion regarding the competence in question. This was also brought about by an initial task they had been given by the team of counselors: They were asked to formulate, execute and document at least one assignment for their students that was directly related to the specific competence of their project. Therefore also teachers who had not been confronted with the competence model before were pushed to integrate observation, measurement, language or argumentation in their project. As the focus was on one single competence only, teachers collected more detailed information on it. This and the possibility to contact the coaches at any time were stated as very helpful. Some of the projects were performed by teachers who had already participated in the program in 2010/2011 (e. g. projects 13, 14, 16 and 17 from table 1). These projects are especially interesting for two reasons: On the one hand the professional development of the teachers as a direct result of their project work can be investigated (preliminary data are very promising). On the other hand two primary school projects were direct continuations of the first year’s work with the same pupils (projects 14 and 17). As the projects have been well documented in both years and will be continued in the following year a longitudinal study of the pupils’ development of competencies can and will be performed. CONCLUSION

The resumé of the first year yielded a somewhat mixed picture: In principle, the basic concept of combining school-based PAR projects with background investigations by university experts proved fruitful and promising. As outlined above, cooperation in some special projects brought the desired mutual benefit. On the other hand, the cross-case analysis did not meet with the expectations of the team of researchers 106



in the thematic program. This was due to the fact that both the school projects in themselves and the teachers’ attitudes and expertise regarding the concept of competence orientation in mathematics and science teaching were too disparate for a comparative study. Outcomes of the evaluation of the second project cycle of the thematic program show a much better result: Both by the guidelines the teachers received initially and by the counseling during the course of the projects teachers were much better aware of the programmatic intention of their projects and tried to design their teaching activities according to their specific competency. They were also more willing and able to evaluate their own project according to the principles of PAR. REFERENCES Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Border Crossing into the Subculture of Science. Studies in Science Education, 27(1), 1–52. Bifie - Bundesinstitut für Bildungsforschung, Innovation & Entwicklung des österreichischen Schulwesens. (2011). Aufgabenpool NAWI Sekundarstufe 1. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from http://aufgabenpool.bifie.at/nawi/index.php?action=14&cmd=3 EDK – Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren. (2011). Grundkompetenzen für die Naturwissenschaften. Nationale Bildungsstandards. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from http:// edudoc.ch/record/96787/files/grund komp_nawi_d.pdf Eilks, I., & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory Action Research in chemical education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in Chemical Education – What does this mean? Aachen: Shaker. Eilks, I. (2011). Action Research in Science Education. Opening Lecture of the 2011 CARN Conference, Vienna. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from http://ius.uni-klu.ac.at/misc/carn/presentations.php FDZ (2010). Retrieved December 19, 2013, from http://www.unifdz.at/index.php?lang=de Hofer, H. (2011). Kompetenzentwicklung im Laborunterricht am Beispiel Energie. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from http://imst3plus.aau.at/imst-wiki/index.php/Kompetenzentwicklung_im_ Laborunterricht_am_Beispiel_Energie IMST. (2011). Retrieved December 19, 2013, from https://www.imst.ac.at Kultusminister. (2005). Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder. Bildungsstandards im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. München: Luchterhand. Langer, E., & Neumann, S. (2012). Enhancing Language Awareness in Science Education by means of CLIL. In W. Gräber & H. Hansen (Eds.), CROSSNET – Crossing Boundaries in Science Teacher Education. Münster: Waxmann. Lugitsch, J. (2011). Kompetenzen im experimentellen naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht (Diploma thesis). Karl-Franzens-Universität, Graz. Marsik, J. (2011). Fachbezogene Textkompetenz in Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from http://imst3plus.aau.at/imst-wiki/index.php/Fachbezogene_ Textkompetenz_in_Mathematik_und_Naturwissenschaften Schreiber, N., Theyßen, H., & Schecker, H. (2009). Experimentelle Kompetenz messen?! In Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, Fachverband Didaktik der Physik (Eds.), Vorträge auf der Frühjahrstagung Bochum 2009. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from http://www.idn.uni-bremen.de/ pubs/DD_56_NicoSchreiber.pdf Tausig, S. (2011). Fachspezifische Textkompetenz im bilingualen Naturwissenschaftsunterricht. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from http://imst3plus.aau.at/imst-wiki/index.php/Fachspezifische_ Textkompetenz_im_bilingualen_Naturwissenschaftsunterricht Tesch, M. (2005). Das Experiment im Physikunterricht. Berlin: Logos-Verlag. Trimmel, Ch. (2011). Vom Kochrezept zur Kompetenz. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from http:// imst3plus.aau.at/imst-wiki/index.php/Vom_Kochrezept_zur_Kompetenz

107



IREM KIZILASLAN

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A TEACHER RESEARCHER? A TURKISH PERSPECTIVE

INTRODUCTION

Action research has been frequently advocated as a means of promoting reflection, inquiry and educational change in many teacher education programs and is considered a major component in teacher education. Defined as “systematic inquiry by teachers with the goal of improving their teaching practices” (Rock & Levin, 2002: 8), teacher action research is an issue of “not only how teachers act in their classrooms, or with others in the school, but also how they come to ‘own’ and produce knowledge for their own purposes” (Price, 2001: 44). As an individual inquiry that uniquely contributes to a teacher’s understanding of a phenomenon of interest, action research process itself is transferable. In other words, teachers can replicate or share the products of their inquiry with colleagues, which provides a model of purposeful reflection, analysis of learning, and dissemination of findings (Bradley-Levine, Smith & Carr, 2009). Action research can contribute strongly to shaping teacher identities of preservice teachers who have embarked on their journey to becoming a teacher. Slowly but surely, action research helps pre-service teachers think and act critically on their way to becoming a caring, intelligent and transformative educator (Phillips & Carr, 2010). There are other reasons identified by educational researchers for introducing action research to pre-service teachers: • Action research offers a way to bridge theory and practice together, narrowing the gap between the two. It is a valuable tool for linking what students learn about teaching from their school experiences with what they learn from university experiences. It is a link between pre-service and in-service teaching (Ponte, Beijard & Ax, 2004; Stevens & Kitchen, 2004; Ax, Ponte & Brouwer, 2008). • In line with the current constructivist thought on teacher education, action research can enhance pre-service teachers’ capacities to understand teaching and act upon those understandings. It enables them to actively pursue their own questions, tell their own stories and create their own meaning in their own voice (Ross, 1987; Price, 2001; Rock & Levin, 2002; Phillips & Carr, 2009). • Action research helps pre-service teachers develop critical competencies of a professional educator as they practice a cycle of assessment, planning and implementation based upon data collected in the classroom. The added F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 109–116. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


I. KIZILASLAN

responsibility and opportunity for initiative that action research makes the process of learning to become a teacher a more conscious effort (Kosnik & Beck, 2000; Phillips & Carr, 2009). • Action research is an effective way to prepare pre-service teachers for the complex role they will face in today’s world. It documents the process of learning to teach in the midst of multiple roles and conflicting expectations in both academic and emotional domains (Kosnik & Beck, 2000; Phillips & Carr, 2009). • Action research is also an important qualification for lifelong learning in the workplace after university education (Ponte et al., 2004). Although educational action research is not unknown in Turkey, its use is not widespread. As a consequence of Turkey’s European Union accession process, teacher education system in the country was revised in line with a constructivist approach and some changes were made in the curricula of education faculties by the Higher Education Council. The proposed changes included increasing the number and credits of general knowledge and elective courses and enriching the content of courses in education faculties with examples extracted from daily practices, all of which aimed to change the curriculum from a teacher-centered didactic model to a student centered constructivist model (Bulut, 2007; European Commission Report, 2010). Sadly, however, these changes have not improved the sorry state of teacher education in Turkey. Pre-service teachers still spend hours gaining theoretical knowledge about their subject and general education, with little time spent on actual teaching that will enable them to connect theory to practice. Pre-service teachers have practicum courses, but there is little opportunity for them to put their knowledge into practice since the purpose of these courses is rather “outmoded” and “hazy” (Altan, 1998). It is really hard to state that reflection and self-evaluation are stressed during the entire study period and/or field experiences. Except from the individual attempts of some teacher educators, the present climate at education faculties fail to contribute to self-growth and professional development of pre-service teachers. Under these circumstances, it would be rather naïve to believe that pre-service teachers will naturally become action researchers and engage in action research as teachers. Without warmth from the faculty, without time to do nothing but prepare for some centralized exams and with little encouragement from any corner of the educational world, these students can hardly become researchers of their own practice. Moreover, teacher education programs in Turkey contain few courses on conducting research in education. There appears to be no single course on action research which will certainly help pre-service teachers bridge the gap between theory and practice in instructional endeavors. One example is the program in English Language Teaching (ELT). A brief look at the ELT program suggests that preservice teachers are introduced to research in a two-credit course entitled “Scientific Research Methods”, which seems to be too broad in content and insufficient for setting the stage for an action research course that might be taken by pre-service 110



teachers later in their education period. The scope of the course is described as follows: • YIO 2010 Scientific Research Methods (fourth semester): Definition of research and basic concepts, history of research, introduction to research, research methods, research design, sampling, data collection procedures, data analysis, interpreting and reporting findings. Another experience for pre-service teachers is a course entitled “ELT Methodology” taken during the graduate year of the program. This course aims to cover the following aspects: • YIO 3003 ELT Methodology II (fifth semester): Classroom-based research, teacher-directed research and action research, diagnosing learners’ languagerelated needs and remedial teaching activities, principles of learner monitoring and the role of learner assessment in lesson planning, national and international organizations and journals related to ELT. With this general picture of the program in mind, the present study aimed to explore senior ELT student teachers’ perceptions of action research and its basic components from a qualitative research paradigm. Qualitative methodology was selected because it is often the best research means when exploring a topic about which little is known-especially from the “inside” perspective. The emphasis of the study was to get inside “the black box” of the current program and practices (Padgett, 2008). It is believed that such an analysis is significant for understanding and improving teacher education programs and that the findings will be useful for those involved in teacher education in Turkey. METHOD

The sample for the present study was obtained from a large public university in Izmir, the third largest city of Turkey. The education faculty of this university caters for students from various departments. Graduates of the faculty have to sit for the KPSS exam (a qualification exam) in order to become qualified teachers in public schools. All 105 senior pre-service teachers from the Department of English Language Teaching where the author works as an Assistant Professor participated in the study. Their ages ranged between 21 and 23. 80 of participants were female and 25 were male. This proportion represented the high female-to-male ratio of education majors at this particular department. Given the fact that open-response items are especially good for exploring issues which have not been previously investigated (Brown, 2009), a survey with openended questions was presented to students. The survey sought to establish the perceptions that pre-service teachers had about action research and its importance for teachers and learners, by asking questions like:

111


I. KIZILASLAN

1. 2. 3. 4.

Action research is …. One of the things I know about action research is … I think action research appeals to me because … One of the goals of action research is …

Sentence completion items in the survey helped elicit a more meaningful answer than a simple question and did not restrict the respondents to a set of answers. Greater freedom of expression provided a relatively wide range of surprising responses, striking examples, and illustrative quotes, all of which added richness, depth and color to the data (Dörnyei, 2007; Brown, 2009). Based on initial coding of the surveys, informal group discussions were held with students to provide an in-depth explanation of their personal views. It seemed to be the case that respondents felt more comfortable while talking in small groups and tended to express themselves more clearly than through writing. Data analysis adhered to Creswell’s (2002) coding process. A preliminary exploratory analysis was conducted to obtain a general sense of the data, memo ideas, and think about the organization of the data. The text was then divided into segments of information with codes which were later reduced to a few major themes. Internal validity was enhanced through a number of mechanisms – member-checking (Creswell & Miller, 2000) and an external auditor (Creswell, 2002) – built into the study’s design. In the present study, following the identification of the themes, the author talked to respondents and solicited their feedback. They all agreed that the themes identified were accurate. Also, a colleague outside the project conducted a thorough review of the study and reported back in writing the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis. Having an individual independent of the original data analysis was useful for identifying biases and assumptions in the logic or the method of the study. FINDINGS

Overall, respondents described action research on three levels: the concept, the process and the goal. These three dimensions are discussed below with illustrative support, supplying voice to various pre-service teachers in the sample. The Concept On the whole, respondents’ descriptions of action research did not differ significantly. In their view, action research is research carried out in the classroom mainly with the purpose of solving a problem concerning “student misbehaviour” or “lack of motivation”. Although almost one-fifth of participants (n=20) stated that they had no idea about action research, most of them viewed action research as a reflective process and defined it as follows: Action research refers to the process of identifying a problem in the classroom and looking for solutions to this specific problem. For example, an English 112



teacher realizes that she uses the mother tongue excessively in class. Having identified the problem, she tries to find possible answers to it. The Process Apparently, participants knew about action research, but they only had a hazy idea of what doing it involved. This finding was not surprising at all since the curriculum at education faculties does not offer enough opportunities to learn from authentic classroom experience. Although most of the respondents understood and appreciated action research, they did not know how to apply it in the classroom. They consistently viewed action research as a cyclical process, but were not sure about the steps in the action-reflection cycle, as one respondent reflected: “The first step in action research is to identify a problematic situation in the classroom, but I have no idea about the other steps. What I know is that we need to go back to this first stage if it does not work”. Pre-service teachers were familiar with some ways of collecting information in the classroom such as observation, interviews, think-alouds or reflection and journals. In group discussions, however, they noted that they had not tried them out in the classroom atmosphere. On the whole, pre-service teacher reflections suggested that their understanding of action research was shaped mostly by some theoretical knowledge not put into practice at all. It is unfortunately the case that courses in teacher education programs in Turkey are still offered using a traditional method of instruction that strongly emphasizes theoretical knowledge. For instance, in the fifth semester of their study period, these pre-service teachers took the compulsory course ELT Methodology II, which is supposed to include an action research component. However, they explained that they were not able to conduct action research projects within the framework of this course since access to schools and students was impossible for them as preservice teachers at that time. In the final semester of their study period, these student teachers had a teaching practice course in which they did three or four micro lessons (10-15 minutes teaching). Yet, as some of the students explained, the conditions in public schools such as crowded classes, reluctant attitude of their mentor and administration and their insecure status as pre-service teachers did not support them in their attempts to carry out inquiries. Furthermore, especially in group discussions, the majority stated rather realistically that they did not even consider doing action research projects during the field experience since it was not a requirement of the course. The Goal As the majority of respondents saw it, the main goal of action research was to solve a problem in the classroom. Their understanding of action research was limited to finding solutions to a pressing classroom problem and they did not consider it as an ongoing professional practice. These pre-service teachers did not feel that teachers 113


I. KIZILASLAN

can also do action research to improve one aspect of their teaching practice, or try out a new idea, or even because they have to use a new textbook or work at a new school. Therefore, it seems unlikely that doing action research projects will become a regular part of these prospective teachers’ teaching practice. Furthermore, they did not ever mention the importance of doing action research projects for learners. In other words, they did not feel that learners might benefit not only from better teaching and learning processes that action research creates, but also have a better understanding of their own learning processes – behavioural, cognitive and emotional – because they participated in action research, through journals, reflections, interviews, and even think-alouds. Several of these pre-service teachers even stated that they did not see the doing of action projects as a priority, given the difficult working conditions of teachers in Turkey such as overcrowded classes, lack of sources or insecurity in some parts of the country. Therefore, it seems really hard to lead these pre-service teachers to believe that they could and possibly even should do action research. IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION IN TURKEY

Findings of the present study indicate that pre-service teachers in the sample are not knowledgeable about action research processes. Consequently, they do not seem to be so enthusiastic about action research and its usefulness for their classroom management. Since action research practices are not a compulsory component of the curriculum, these pre-service teachers do not see it necessary to carry out inquiries, even if some of them believe in its importance for their professional growth. It is very sad that these young students are not fully aware of the role action research can play in empowering them as active agents in their own professional development. Within the Turkish context, it seems crucial that the reflective dimension of the teaching profession ought to be expanded, beginning from the early years of teacher education. Otherwise, these pre-service teachers cannot “evolve beyond transmitter to become a researcher as well” (Clausen, 2010). It is thus possible to make some recommendations to more firmly integrate action research into teacher education programs in Turkey: 1. In order to incorporate the researcher role within teacher role and provide opportunities for pre-service teachers to develop their practical skills, a course on action research needs to be integrated into pre-service teacher education programs. Such a course will help students develop skills and processes necessary for reflective inquiry and take an active researcher role in their school community. This course can also provide an opportunity for pre-service teachers to develop and enhance their commitments, ideas and practices as beginning teachers (Price, 2001; Gray & Campbell-Evans, 2002). 2. However, the crafting of curriculum and pedagogy of an action research course needs special attention since it has implications for who these pre-service teachers 114



become as teachers and how they see the work of teaching. Factors such as the insecurities of students, concerns of the public school system and demands of the education faculty need to be taken into account while preparing the content of an action research course (Ross, 1987; Price, 2001). 3. It is also important that an action research course offers worthwhile experiences for pre-service teachers so that they do not see it as “a formidable undertaking”, but as a tool for fostering professional growth and knowledge. The course should provide a framework that will assist them to understand their teaching practices in relation to the lives of students and teachers’ everyday reality through purposeful and systematic practice (Ross, 1987; Price, 2001). 4. Considering the educational conditions in Turkey, it is not realistic to assume that pre-service teachers will turn into teacher researchers after successfully completing a single action research course. No matter how effective the course is, it may prove disappointing in its impact because it is certainly not very easy to challenge long-standing traditional teaching practices. Therefore, it is essential that all aspects of the program stress inquiry and self-evaluation that is the foundation of action research. Apparently, pre-service teachers need time to learn how to reflect on experiences before they are able to carry out action research projects. This suggests that teacher education courses introduce students gradually to action research after providing an overall understanding of inquiry and research (Ross, 1987; Ponte et al., 2004). In conclusion, great commitment on the part of the education faculty, the schools with which the faculty collaborates, teacher educators and students is required to develop skills at action research and systematic reflection as an integrated activity within teacher education programs. Pre-service teachers need to understand that high priority is given to action research practices throughout the educational community. Only in this way will it be possible to bring about positive social change and contribute to bringing a different world into existence for teachers of this country. REFERENCES Altan, M. Z. (1998). A call for change and pedagogy: A critical analysis of teacher education in Turkey. European Journal of Education, 33(4), 407–418. Ax, J., Ponte, P., & Brouwer, N. (2008). Action research in initial teacher education: An explorative study. Educational Action Research, 16(1), 55–72. Bradley-Levine, J., Smith, J., & Carr, K. (2009). The role of action research in empowering teachers to change their practice. Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research, 3, 152–161. Brown, J. D. (2009). Open-response items in questionnaires. In J. Heigham and R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 200–219). Great Britain, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Bulut, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkey: A case of primary school mathematics curriculum. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 203–212. Clausen, K. W. (2010). Acclimatizing pre-service teachers to action research: Worth the effort? The Ontario Action Researcher, 11(1). Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Merrill: Prantice Hall.

115


I. KIZILASLAN Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. Dokuz Eylul University, Faculty of Education, English Language Teaching Department. Course Descriptions. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://www.deu.edu.tr/DEUWeb/Icerik/Icerik. php?KOD=15208 Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York, NY: Oxford. European Commission Report (2010). Organization of the Education System in Turkey. Retrieved July 12, 2011 from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/eurybase_full_ reports/TR_EN.pdf Gray, J., & Campbell-Evans, G. (2002). Beginning teachers as teacher-researchers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), Article 4. Kosnik, C., & Beck C. (2000). The action research process as a means of helping student teachers understand and fulfil the complex role of the teacher. Educational Action Research, 8(1), 115–136. Padgett, D. K. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Phillips, D. K., & Carr, K. (2009). Dilemmas of trustworthiness in preservice teacher action research. Action Research, 7(2), 207–226. Phillips, D. K., & Carr, K. (2010). Becoming a teacher through action research. New York, NY: Routledge. Ponte, P., Beijard, D., & Ax, J. (2004). Don’t wait until the cows come home: Action research and initial teacher education in three different countries. Teachers and Teaching, 10(6), 591–620. Price, J. N. (2001). Action research, pedagogy and change: The transformative potential of action research in pre-service teacher education. Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 43–74. Rock, T. C., & Levin, B. B. (2002, Winter). Collaborative action research projects: Enhancing pre-service teacher development in professional development schools. Teacher Education Quarterly, 7–21. Ross, D. D. (1987). Action research for pre-service teachers: A description of why and how. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(3), 131–150. Stevens, D., & Kitchen, J. (2004). Introducing pre-service teachers to action research. The Ontario Action Researcher, 7(1).

116


GEITZA REBOLLEDO, VIOLETA REQUENA & EDWARD MELÉNDEZ

CHANGING TEACHING PRACTICE USING INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY A Teacher Students Collaborative Action Research

THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The undergraduate Curriculum course at the Universidad Pedagogica Experimental Libertador Pedagogic Institute (UPEL – IPC) is considered one of the most important and essential courses that students should know, learn, and put into practice during their teaching education. It is part of the Pedagogic Component of the University Syllabus. It is supposed to give the pedagogic teacher training student a wider view of the meaning of Curriculum and its administration in the school and classroom. Students normally take this course at the sixth semester (students graduate after approving ten semesters, three school training and a Community Project), after studying Philosophy, Sociology and different Psycological and Pedagogical Theories. Themes to be studied include the following: Curriculum definitions, types of curriculum, its Philosophical, Sociological, Psychological and Pedagogic Foundations. Curriculum in a centralized educational system is seen at macro, meso and micro level of planning. Objectives of the course include students developing skills in the designing of planning and the administration of the curriculum in the classroom. Planning includes: objectives, contents, teaching methodologies, and evaluation criteria to guide the implementation of the Curriculum and the academic process of teaching and learning in the classroom. That means, what to teach, how to teach, when to teach and also what and when to evaluate as well as how to assess. Students should design a project in the context of a local school in order to connect Curriculum theory to schools and communities practice. As a teacher of the course for more than sixteen years, I1 have had the experience of living the two views of the Curriculum as have been pointed out by Stenhouse (1975): the curriculum as theory prescribed in a course program and what in fact happens in the classrooms. “The central point of a curriculum study is the gap between ideas and our attempts to operationalize them.” The reality of the classroom is quite different than what is written in the Course Program. For example, in recent F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 117–134. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


G. REBOLLEDO, V. REQUENA & E. MELÉNDEZ

years I have heard teachers complaining that the absence of many students has been noticed that enrolled in classes at the beginning of the semester, but that there is also a high number of students that leave the courses in the middle of the semester, failing the subject. A critical incident happened at the beginning of the first semester 2011. I asked the new students what they had heard about the teaching of the subject of Curriculum Studies from previous students of the course. They issued negative opinions in relation to the lecture of the course by university teachers. They mentioned the following: Passive methods of teaching where students are rarely found in active learning activities to develop skills, mostly ex-cathedra teaching and reading. There was also a lack of activities which promote discussions among students to bring about their point of view. They reported that the course was just taught theoretically, with repetitive teaching strategies that ended in a less constructivist process for learning. They also argued that university teachers expected them to develop knowledge in the sense of the metaphor of the “Banking Education”, as pointed out by Freire (1970). It illustrates that the students are seen merely as recipients of the teacher’s knowledge. Clearly the student’s comments in their criticism were referring to the need for a different type of pedagogy than the one they were receiving from their teachers. Hence, they pointed out their disagreement with the way teachers facilitate student’s learning, teaching methods, and the subject matter content in itself. In my view this critical incident (McAteer, 2013) showed me the need for an opportunity to change the traditional ways of teaching to another way with conditions for the dialogue as a different way of interaction in the classroom. However, I was aware that the putting into practice of these changes in a sense could not only have teaching practice implications but political ones as well; political in the meaning that has been pointed out by Carr and Kemmis (1986). They meant that in Education there might be different views about the future way of society and this might evolve in conflicting ways as there might exist different values and interests. That is something we have experienced in recent years in the Venezuelan society in a very profound way. It is also important to mention that UPEL-IPC is the biggest Pedagogical University in Venezuela. It is located in different campuses around the country with more than 200.000 students. The Pedagogic Institute is located in Caracas with around 1.200 students. In recent years public Universities like UPEL, which is one of the oldest in the country, had suffered cuts in the Higher Education Budget by the government. Undoubtedly this situation has affected the normal classes’ schedule. The Teachers Unions called to strike in order to press the government for budget reconsideration. The political tension has resulted in class interruptions which have affected student’s attendance and prosecution but also, though it has not been researched, the teaching. Another aspect related to the context situation of UPEL-IPC is the modernization process of curriculum design and development since 2009 (UPEL, 2011). Curriculum change is interpreted as more than a new “content” prescribed program. UPEL teachers from the different institutes around the country have been consulted in relation to the new curriculum. It has also been inspired by the UNESCO Educational proposal of Education. It advocates the inclusion of new technologies 118


CHANGING TEACHING PRACTICE USING INFORMATION

(ICT), the development of student’s and teacher’s reflexivity (Propuesta Curricular UPEL-IPC) and new contextual interactive pedagogies in the classrooms. In one word it aims at the improvement of teaching and learning processes. As an active teacher of UPEL-IPC and taking into account our view of the critical incident, in addition to my believe in the Action Research Philosophy, and political vision committed to society change, I became aware of the importance of investigating our own teaching practice. I began to define the first questions of the study as follows: How is it possible to promote better dialogical conditions in my classes? How can classroom interactions be improved? How can I involve myself and my students in a research study? To embark on a collaborative Action Research (AR) gave me second thoughts, as I had experience with teacher-teacher collaboration studies but not teacher–student collaboration. In this aspect, Espido Bello (2006) was of help when considering the preliminary phase of an AR. Also, I understood that I had to deal with the political dimension (Noffke & Somekh, 2009) of a collaborative AR study, especially concerning the need for the reaching of consensus of judgments (Elliott, in Noffke & Somekh, 2009). That probably was driving me to change the traditional teacher’s role. It needed, as pointed out by McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead (2003), collaborators with capacity to show empathy with other’s feelings, interests, experiences and perspectives of live. It means also to care for others and the motivation to work together in order to develop joint knowledge and understanding. In order to process with the research I invited three previous students (23 and 24 years old), that I considered having the emphatic capacity to be involved in the study. They also knew my teaching and were motivated towards ICT as a way to communicate better in the classroom. My first thought was that the opening of a collaboration space should give us the possibility of getting together to discuss classroom events and identifying other ways of interpreting the emerging classroom situations. These students were very skilful in ICT, interested in Action Research and knew about the critical incident. Thus, they were invited to become “partners” in the study, which meant to interact together democratically under the same conditions outside the classroom and to be open to discuss different matters happening in the classroom and in the web. We decided to meet every Friday morning at a space of the University outside the classroom. Also we agreed to tape record our conversations and discussions, when possible. At the beginning we held several meetings and discussions on educational paradigms to orientate the research study. The pedagogical ideas of Freire (1998) were considered relevant for the study, especially the emphasis on “dialogue in learning” which gives a “democratic character” to teaching and learning. We shared the idea of students and teachers integrating into a mutual creation of knowledge in the classroom in a more horizontal interaction. This aspect relates to the demands of educators as being “political”. We found ourselves discussing on how to deal with authority in the classroom. In the discussion we also developed the idea that somehow teachers feel they lose power related to discipline in the classroom if 119



they become more democratically in the sense of letting students initiate topics of conversation in the classroom instead of following the teacher’s views. They gave me several examples from classes at the University, although their teachers said to be democratically oriented. On the other hand we also considered Barnett (2000) and Barnett and Coate (2005) and their views concerning University Education as relevant, especially the argument that lecturers often have an idea of teaching that sees the students as recipients of a curriculum instead of placing them into an active, critical, dialogical and reflexive situation. Thanks to these discussions, I became more aware of my own teaching as congruently or non-congruently performed with the goals. Another point that emerged was related to how to initiate and carry on discussions in the classroom. The idea of starting discussions with open questions was suggested as a way to a more democratic practice approach. We agreed that there was the need to develop a new pedagogy in the classroom were the students could express themselves and show their own ideas in the classroom, letting them express themselves freely. But we also agreed that the information collected could be used to improve my own practice in the teaching of an undergraduate Curriculum Course at UPEL–IPC. The ideas of Somekh (2007) concerning innovations were also reflected; especially the idea to develop new learning practices. Hence, to bring ICT as a technological tool was going to help us to do things differently in the context of the courses. We had to design a way to motivate the students to post their ideas through a newly created Curriculum Forum. But also for us as a team there was the idea of taking responsibility to read the postings of the students and to meet weekly to triangulate and develop consensus on our points of view concerning the students’ work. Considering all the above mentioned, the previous research questions of the study were redefined as the following: How can I improve my teaching practice in the context of Curriculum Studies at UPEL-IPC, taking into consideration the classroom students’ point of view, using ICT and the contributions of the collaborating students? The general purpose of the study was to develop a collaborative respectful and trusting space through ICT, to research my teaching through the reflections of classroom students, the collaborating students and myself in order to improve my own practice in the teaching of Curriculum Studies at UPEL–IPC. ACTION RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES

The Action Research (AR) approach of this study was based on the epistemological and ontological views of authors such as John Elliott (2007), Carr and Kemmis (1986), Susan Noffke and Bridget Somekh (2009), and Jack Whitehead (1993), among others. Essentially they all consider the Action Research methodological spiral of identifying a problem situation and imagining a possible solution, which is planned, implemented, reflected and evaluated, and includes changes in practice based on the evaluation cycle which is continuing indefinitely. However, there are different 120



emphases of Action Research, built on epistemological and ontological assumptions. For example Elliott (2007) takes a practical approach of AR to improve teachers’ practice. Altrichter, Feldman, Posch and Somekh (2008) are following Elliott’s approach, who defined AR in relation to methods and strategies for researching and developing practice: “Reflection opens up new options for action and is examined by being realized in action.” Carr and Kemmis (1986) point out that access to knowledge is constrained by the operation of power and privilege in societies hence AR allows the empowering of researchers. Kemmis (2007) however, more recently, has pointed out that AR rather than a methodology as suggested by Somekh (2006) should be conceptualized as a practical philosophy that allows its practitioners to make systematic investigations of their own beliefs and perceptions, and what it is assumed in connection with their practice as well as to justify it in moral terms, such as reflecting and sharing ideas, but also writing about it along with the ability to solve problems and the values of respect, appreciation, humility, inclusion and democracy. Whitehead (1989) on the other hand, pointing at co-creation and inter-subjectivity in AR, asks a crucial question: How do I improve what I do? This related to my purpose of study as I wanted to improve my own teaching. On the other hand, Noffke (in Noffke & Somekh, 2009), added the personal dimension to any AR study. She points at “the impact on the personal growth and development of those who engage in it”. I consider this as one of the most important aspects of AR. To work collaboratively with my students was a challenge not only for them but for me, too. I was aware that this “dimension” was going to be developed during the process of this AR study. NEW TECHNOLOGIES

The study incorporates the use of Internet. Markham (2004) presented important considerations for the use of Internet. Among them are the following: • The internet communication nature is defined in context, negotiated by users to suit their individual or community needs. • Internet communication gives qualitative researchers an opportunity to witness the social construction of reality as it occurs textually. • Internet brings into relief working assumptions. • It is possible through Internet to develop effective, rigorous and reflexive research practices. Margaret Farren (2005) mentioned in her PhD thesis, relating to her collection techniques, that “new developments in ICT allow the researcher the opportunity to collect data using different media”. In her research she used email correspondences, online learning dialogues as well as audio and video conferencing recordings. The online technology included reflective journals. On the other hand Somekh (2007), who already referred to the subject of a new conception of the role of technology, mentions that it is part of a complex of interactions with learners; also that this new understanding is essential if it is to be used effectively in teaching and learning. 121



In this study, ICT journals were used to show specific views raised by the students that attended my curriculum classes, but also to encourage them to keep working on the subject and, through the writing of post class reflections, to open a different world of intersubjective relation that goes further than what the classroom allows. All this was done to document teaching and learning throughout the research study. The equipment we used was basically a computer with internet. The point of using ICT was to collect the students’ points of view in relation to my teaching practice, and different educational activities followed during the semester, but also the perceptions of the students concerning the class, posted by them to be analyzed by the research team. In this study a Curriculum Forum was designed in conjunction with the collaborator students to motivate the course students to reflect on what they perceived during the Curriculum Classes, but also to post their home works and to participate in the open discussions raised by the course students. The collaborators and I could participate in the forum by motivating the students, bringing other resources, mainly readings, in order to raise the possibilities of the students’ participation and the sharing of ideas. In a sense we tried to implement a classroom journal on the web forum when we requested students’ reflections about the perceptions they had in each class. THE ACTION RESEARCH PROCESS

This section presents the methodology and methods that allowed the development of this collaborative action research study to show the type of research, techniques and procedures that were used. We tried to adapt the Kemmis and McTaggart (1985) spiral of Action Research. In this sense Classroom Action Research activities involve repeated cycles, each consisting of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. The result of one cycle is used to determine the need for the following cycle, the researcher can stop the cycle according to his or her view of solving the problem .Also the Pepperdine scheme of Action Research in cycles was considered of great relevance for this study as it includes different connected action research cycles together in the reflection process in a progressive way. Margaret Riel in her Web Tutorial (2014) refers the following: Action research is a process of deep inquiry into one’s practices with the goal of evolving a deeper understanding of patterns of change. It involves taking action and collecting data to analyze and understand the actions from the perspectives of others and in relationship to a projected outcome. It is cyclic or spirals as the researcher moves through a period of thoughtful planning of the action, to taking action, then analyzing evidence collected to make sense of the action. The final step – critical reflection on what was learned – is used to create conceptual tools for planning of new actions. As one progresses through cycles, there is a continuous process of refining methods, making new decisions about data collection and evolving strategies for data interpretation. 122



Figure 1. Action Research Cycles (see Riel, 2014).

In relation to the question of what method to use for the study to reflect the reality of the classroom, we were aware of the wide perspectives of reality involved during the classes, as there were the views of the course students, the collaborators and mine. Following Somekh’s (2006) considerations on finding a method to reflect reality in AR, but also Whitehead’s (1989) on the need for creating inventiveness on research, in order to achieve the research purposes, we chose to work with our diaries and the students’ posted reflections on ICT. This relates to what Bold (2004) called “workplace reflection”, considering “reflexive practice is that which teachers develop in response to reflecting on significant classroom events”. She goes on pointing that “for practitioners to develop reflexive practice, they must engage in reflection upon qualitative issues and consider different people’s perspectives on events rather than quantitative measures”. In our case in addition to the students, there were the views of the collaborators as well as those of the university teacher. We wrote in our diaries the main points of discussion and the reflections that developed after each encounter. 123



In relation to the problem of validity, we considered Habermas (1996) mentioned by Whitehead on social validity. In addition “triangulation” (Altrichter et al., 2008) helped to increase the quality of the action research. Planning The plan was designed in conjunction with the collaborators. Their views were included. Like for example one of them, an Arts student, pointed at using films in the classroom and the construction of posters to express group ideas. One of the other collaborators, an English Language student, took care of the language expressions and writings of the students in the posted diaries. The idea of the Curriculum Forum came from them as they all use the web in their daily life, as young people “it is part of their culture”. We all shared the view of “the use of reflexivity” as a way to find out the significant events in the view of the students concerning my teaching practice. As a result of these inputs we developed the Action Research Plan based on a workshop about teaching strategy that included interactive learning activities in the classroom, like group work, and general discussions and the web forum to show students’ reflections on their views of the class. We worked on the Curriculum concept, it’s foundations, the constructivist approach and the Curriculum Planning. The teaching strategies of the developed plan included the following design elements: * Workshops: based upon the pre-knowledge brought by the students about the meaning of Curriculum, and the study of the different conceptions of Curriculum in relation to its epistemology and ontology as well as on the understanding of the UPEL-IPC Study Plan and Programs they are studying in the class. * Three films and a video for classroom discussion and reflection on the web: 1. “What the bleep do we know?”: It includes discussions on paradigms and the philosophical foundations of the Curriculum. 2. “Caracas 100 years”: It illustrates the urbanization changes brought to the Venezuelan society through the oil production from 1900 to 2000 as a sociological aspect to consider cultural changes in the Venezuelan context of education and the curriculum. 3. “MENI”: a video on the planning and implementation of a constructivism approach to Science classroom teaching using the concept of Energy. * The Curriculum Project as a way for the students to apply Curricular knowledge and to design a project in relation to a context to which they were connected (a school, a community, our University Institute, etc.). The application of curriculum theory to the designing of a Planning Project within a Venezuelan educational context. * The Curriculum Forum to be opened in the web for the students to send their reflections on aspects of the class that called their attention including the teacher 124



pedagogy developed during the class, also as a way to develop more interactions in the teaching of the subject. The resources for the activities were organized in advance and were made accessible before the lessons started .It is this strategy that becomes the focus of the study, to be prepared, to be tried out, and to be revised by the team and by me in relation to the pedagogy to be implemented. The teaching strategy was planned for 12 weeks and three hours per week. The three student collaborators assumed responsibility for the operation of the curriculum forum in each class. They were to act as mentors and motivators of the students to write their reflections in the forum. At this time I wrote in my diary: From the discussion with the collaborators, the planned learning strategy was thought to be a more interactive teaching strategy. That required an effort from me for being more open to my students’ ideas, but also to my own role and teaching style. In other words, it was kept in mind that the more a teaching strategy includes students’ participation and interaction, the more effective is the teaching. Acting At this stage, we were involved in the process of actually trying out the plan and collected through the web forum the students’ reflections in order to see the students’ points of view concerning my teaching practice. However, as has been pointed elsewhere (Kusch, Rebolledo & Ryan, 2000) the application in the reality of the classroom implies more than the planned sequence. They mentioned Atkinson (1994) in relation to the tensions between thoughts and action and asserted that a researcher might be doing all stages of teaching simultaneously. Also Zeichner’s (2000) point of view suggests that within Action Research planning and outcomes are often not determined in conscious decisions but “emanate from the process”. I kept my acting with the open questions planned; however, what arose during the classroom processes was reflected in the web forum by the students as a reflexive input to my teaching action and my diary reflections. From the workshops different written productions were obtained, together with our diaries. The First Cycle The first cycle of data collected from the Classroom Action Research included all information given by the students’ posted reflections at the Curriculum Forum, the teachers’ and collaborators’ diaries and views, and the triangulation and its analysis. When the team triangulated the posted students’ contributions and our diary reflections concerning general results, the following aspects were identified: 1. Resistance to the use of the ICT Forum: This was observed in only one group, the one attended by the older students. When asked by the collaborators in a 125



visit to the classroom they mentioned lack of time and no computing facilities at the university and at their homes. At the meeting discussion it was pointed as a resistance to the use of the technology. Different expressions used by the students, mainly adult girls, were brought into the discussion, like “this is more work” and “Why to use computers in this class?”, “I have no time for this”, “I live far away” and “I work at a school”… This finding prompted us to reflect on the use of ICT in the classroom. We had assumed that because the activity emerged from the students’ point of view, and because it was innovative and reflective, all of them were going to be immediately engaged in the ICT-Forum. However, this result showed us that there might be other aspects to consider when starting such types of innovations. In this respect Somekh (2006) was of help, especially when referring to the concept of self and the disruptions of daily routines when having to use a computer and “new skills need to be learnt and become part of routine behavior before the computer could be integrated as a mediating tool”. Somekh brought answers when mentioning especially the aspect on assuming a joint enterprise and mutual engagement as dimensions of practice in a community. Somehow we assumed that we dealt with groups of students that were supposed to interact in the classroom as a community. However, some of the students did not share this believe and their main interest was to pass the subject matter with a minimum of effort. Hence, they might lack interest in building interactions with other classroom participants. Also, as the ICT was considered as a voluntary activity and their interest was centered in only passing the subject, their motivation for the activity was low. This gave us the idea that for a second AR-loop, it should be added to the evaluation of the course. 2. On the other hand the collaborators played a motivating and mentoring role. They did this by working individually at the Forum, but also by visiting the classroom to talk to the students in relation to “the good work” they were doing on their posted reflections. We all encouraged them to include their feelings, ideas on the teacher practice, comments on events that called their attention during the class, authors comments etc. Also we told them to pay attention to the grammar aspect. In addition we all included motivating phrases in the forum for those interesting reflections posted by some students and we invited the group to interact among themselves. However, this was seldom accomplished in the students’ forum. We interpreted this finding as related to lack of interest from the students’ side to integrate as a community group. In the case of our subject there are students from different departments like Arts, Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Preschool level, Primary schooling, Sports, Learning difficulties, Commerce, Physics and Math. They belong to different departments of the University and they all sit together in the Curriculum class. The majority of them doesn’t know anyone to start to work with. This aspect made us realize the importance of a type of integration activity during the whole course in order to break barriers of interaction. In relation to the specific aspects of teaching activities included in the plan due to the extension of findings we mention here only the first two teaching activities: 126



* The Curriculum Concept workshop. This started by a diagnostic activity: We asked the students to fill the scheme below with words they knew that related to the term Curriculum (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Initial activity.

Then the students were asked to read two articles and discuss them in a group. One article related to the different conceptions of the Curriculum from the twentieth century to the present and and the second one was about different meanings of the Curriculum in relation to its Philosophical Foundation. The last included the meaning of Curriculum from different perspectives: as a Plan, the Pragmatic Approach, and the Sociocritical meaning. The workshop was started with the following question: What is the meaning of the different Curriculum conceptions? At first, the students read the written material about the different conceptions of Curriculum, then they discussed it in a group and after that each group designed a scheme or a map about the concept of Curriculum and its different paradigmatic conceptions. Finally the groups of students explained their posters to the rest of the class. The results of the first activity showed that the majority of the students knew the term Curriculum only in relation to the concept of CV (curriculum vitae). No more that 10 % knew the concept of Curriculum as a plan. None of them referred to the Pragmatic or the Sociocritical approach to the Curriculum meaning. The posters produced by the groups allowed me to differentiate those students with better skills to process reading information and to express themselves better in writing and orally. These differences can be seen in figures 3 and 4, showing two extreme schemes produced by two different groups of students concerning the concept of curriculum (in Spanish). In the first poster the students wrote less information concerning the meaning of Curriculum. They only mentioned three conceptual aspects, the curriculum and planning, what they referred to as curriculum models and the connection between curriculum and teaching. On the other hand the second group processed more information than the first in the sense of the conceptual elements of the curriculum. The second poster illustrates how the group processed more information concerning the reading analysis. They referred to Tyler’s questions: What, when and 127



how to teach plus how to evaluate? In addition they referred to the curriculum as a plan with a scope and sequence of contents. However, none of the groups mentioned the Stenhouse (1975) meaning of the Curriculum as an attempt to communicate essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that is open to critical scrutiny relating theory and practice .This made me think that the students lacked previous experiences to be able to interpret the meaning of Curriculum correctly. Though the second group mentioned the Typology of Simultaneous Curriculum (Posner, 1998), the hidden, the null, operational and extra-curriculum, when discussing orally the concept of the operational curriculum had to be clarified.

Figure 3. The concept of Curriculum (Poster 1).

Concerning my expectations on their analysis of the Curriculum meaning, I was disappointed, since very few students considered the epistemology, ontology, and values of the positivistic, pragmatic and sociocritical approaches to the Curriculum that were pointed out in the reading I gave them to analyze. When I asked them about this, common answers were: “Yes, we passed Philosophy, but it was too theoretical.” “It was difficult to find any application at all.” “We only studied philosophers…” “I never understood the teacher.” This finding made me reflect on the importance of Philosophy for the understanding of the Curriculum meaning. If the students lacked this aspect then I could extrapolate that there was the need to support the students on this philosophical background in order to reach a better understanding of the concept and application of Curriculum. 128



Figure 4. The concept of Curriculum (Poster 2).

Among the extracts from students’ posted reflections at the ICT during the week after the first class, that were triangulated by the team, we identified the following : – “I liked this workshop class as it was dynamical.” – “I feel insecure, don’t like oral expositions, however, this time I felt supported.” – “I felt bad because at the time the lesson was finished, I was left alone with my group by the rest of the class, while I discussed our work…” 129



– “I felt we established a good relationship, as there was respect and freedom to express our ideas among all the participants.” The first posted reflection is an opinion of a student concerning the acceptance of the teaching practice. He used the term dynamical which means active in opposition to passive; students doing learning activities instead of “copying teachers’ talk” as was referred in the critical incident at the beginning of the study. But in addition it also included the idea of students helping students .This was pointed out during the team discussion: “doing things together in relationship”. The second posted reflection showed me the students’ feelings when having to talk in public. I had assumed that because they were going to be teachers they already had the confidence to speak in public. Hence, I saw the need to ask previously how they feel in relation to this type of oral activity, to give them the freedom to say “I would prefer not to…” and to look for learning strategies to help them to overcome such feelings. The third posted reflection made us reflect on how I didn’t pay attention to my students’ feelings but also to the teacher’s powerful role in a class. I had thought that in order to finish the activity it would be acceptable to leave the last group to explain their work to me when the class timetable was already finished and the rest of the class left. Hence, we agreed that for the next class I had to give an apology to the group that felt bad and to request them to present their work to the rest of the class for discussion. This contributed to build a better class atmosphere as the idea of respect for the work of each member of the class was considered. The readings from Somekh (2006) on the power relations of the teacher in the class were considered of great relevance. She mentioned Foucault when referring to power “as a productive social construction that is inherent to human interaction”. These ideas provided us as a team with “an important set of tools for the analysis of change, often in ways that are counter to the assumptions of participants in organizations” (Somekh, 2006, p. 19). Hence, I had to mediate with the class and the group that felt bad in relation to the discussion of their work. I asked them to present their work in front of the whole group this time in order to receive their points of view of their work. These act helped all of us to keep the democratic atmosphere that we tried to build in class from the beginning of the semester. The fourth posted reflection showed a positive opinion of the class that made us happy as a team and gave us motivation to continue the study. From the triangulation of the students’ posted reflections we considered that though the students’ reflective skills were still incipient, mainly short phrases, one of the strengths of the study was that the students shared the acceptance of a “more dynamical way of teaching and learning “, as was mentioned by several students on the web, and that they accepted their participation and interaction in the class. Though during the workshop the students were able to interact in groups, however, the interaction among them on the web still lacked which made us reflect as a team in relation to developing a more accessible ICT media than the Forum, but also on 130



how to help them to improve their reflection skills. In this respect we produced a study guide inspired by Bold (2004) on writing reflections in a diary. To us as a team, after discussing the findings mentioned above, the close relationship between Action Research and the improving of teaching practice became clear. The Second Cycle As a group we felt more mature, confident and better organized in our discussions than in the first cycle of AR. In a way our collaborative inquiry improve because we matured our way of communication .As has been pointed by Winter (2003) we became more aware of the students’ way of expressing themselves and we managed to see their changes. We met every Friday morning at the University to interpret some of the students’ posted ideas. We extracted some of those relevant to my teaching practice and to the topics under discussion in relation to the AR planned activities. This led us to new insights on how to proceed and what to stress in the following class. From the beginning of the second spiral loop, we agreed that the posted activity should be evaluated for the course marks. In this sense the collaborators proposed to present a table with the number of posted ideas from the students every two weeks. We agreed that it was 20% of the final course evaluation. But it was also useful to bring special posted students extracts that were considered relevant to the study. The ITC we used, Facebook, was considered to be better received by the students as the majority of them already had their own account and was familiar with this web tool. The lesson plan included the same activities that were implemented during the first AR cycle. However, this time we wanted to stress on the students’ reading and reflexive skills development together with the philosophical, sociological and pedagogical foundations of the Curriculum, Designing and Implementation. Though we were aware of the varieties of students’ reflections, we went on to identify students’ initial stages of reflection in order to help them to develop further. Hence, this study analysis is based on the reflections posted by the students and the triangulation done with the collaborators. On our side we continued with the same type of research process we had performed during the first cycle of the study. I constructed my diary from each class reflection, as a team each of us read the students’ posted reflections, then we met to triangulate, to identify the elements involved in the students’ reflections concerning my teaching practice per session, and to reach consensus on the most significant findings for the study. The dialogical teaching strategy worked better than in the first spiral, especially on the planned movie activities. When we discussed this aspect, it came out “that the students showed more interest in sharing their ideas and believes relating to their life experiences, in the classroom discussion and at the web”. “The round table classroom organization, where the teacher also sat, gave equal possibilities for talking”, as some of the students pointed at the web. This aspect made us reflect on the need to create conditions for the dialogue. We as teachers seemed to be pressed by the 131



lesson plans and the content of the subject matter, leaving no space for the students’ participation in relation to their believes and understandings. However, theoretically speaking it is always referred as a Curriculum Program constructivism foundation but in reality we seem to sacrifice students’ dialogical participation for lecturing. In addition this learning strategy requires less talking from the part of the teacher as the teacher becomes a real mediator. On the other hand it requires the teacher to question students’ ideas to help them to reach higher understandings and reflexivity. This type of findings discussions within the team was very productive for us all, as a collaborators team. I believe it helped me to better understand the points of view of the students, but it helped the student collaborators as well as they saw another way of teaching and researching at the University classroom. They started to permeate information on this AR study on the classes they attended at the University. Examples of this came when they borrowed the films to other teachers’ classes; I believe they became “empowered” with a more constructivist approach to teaching and to research. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

In general terms, this Collaborative Action Research Study helped me to figure out ways to change my teaching considering the students’ point of view. The inclusion of the collaborators was a positive aspect of the study. They opened a new way of communication that made me aware of teaching situations happening in the context of the classroom and the university. In this collaboration process we all also grew as human being because we recognized the importance of values such as respect for the ideas of others and responsibility and tolerance. Also the ICT strategy was an excellent innovation for the study as it allowed the interchange of ideas and the post-class reflection, bringing me new points of view about my teaching. In a sense the ICT was a new way to post and share students diaries. As a student referred, “it also helped me to revise the class when reading my classmates’ reflections.” The team stayed motivated during the whole process, allowing the success of the study. In specific terms, the findings can be summarized as follows: 1. A more active participation through better interactions of the students in the classroom 2. Enabling the identification of weak aspects of my teaching could develop a more constructivist approach, based on students’ point of view 3. Allowing me a better interaction with the students through the ICT 4. Involving all participants in a respectful, dialogical way of interacting 5. Developing reflective skills in the students as a growing process 6. Helping me to devise new strategies for teaching 7. Engaging in a better way of communication with students via collaborators and ICT 132



Because of these findings, a future action research study should look deeply into the process of reflection skills development of the students. This was mentioned by one of the collaborators when she referred that “it was interesting to observe how some students progressed in the reflections posted from the first class to the end of the course, while some others kept to the narration and added very few inputs.” As a concluding remark it is possible to say that though we briefly discussed some of the findings here, this collaborative action research study proved to be a useful “catalyst for changing my teaching”, and that due to the methodology that was based on equal footing, it was made possible to give voices to the Curriculum Students of the UPEL-IPC. NOTE 1

“I” refers to the first author of this chapter.

REFERENCES Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers investigate their work. Introduction to the methods of action research. (2nd Rev ed.). London: Routledge. Atkinson, S. (1994). Rethinking the principles and practice of action research: The tensions for the teacher-researcher. Educational Action Research, 2(3), 383–401. Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham: Open University Press. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and Open University Press. Bello, E. E. (2006). Initiating a collaborative action research project: from choosing a school to planning the work on an issue. Educational Action Research, 14(1), 3–21. Bold, C. (Ed.). (2004). Supporting learning and teaching. London: David Fulton Publishers. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer. Elliott , J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Elliott, J. (2007). Reflecting where the action is: The selected works of John Elliott. London: Routledge. Farren, M. (2005). How can i create a pedagogy of the unique through a web of betweenness? (PhD Thesis). University of Bath, UK. Retrieved from http://www.actionresearch.net/living/farren.shtml Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans. M. Bergman Ramos. New York, NY: Seabury Press. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers. Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder, CO: West View Press. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1985). The action research planner. (2nd ed). Deakin, Australia: Deakin University Press. Kemmis, S. (2007). Action research. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Educational research and evidence-based practice (pp. 167–180). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Kusch, J., Rebolledo, G., & Ryan, C. (2005). Practice in planning and planning in practice: Re –assessing and clarifying action research in a multi-national context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 465– 481. Markham, A. (2004). Internet Communication as a Tool for Qualitative Research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research. Theory, Method and Practice (p. 95). London: Sage Publications. Mc Ateer, M. (2013). Action Research in Education. London: SAGE Publications. McNiff, J., Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. (2003). You and your action research project. (2nd ed) London: Routledge.

133


G. REBOLLEDO, V. REQUENA & E. MELÉNDEZ Noffke, S., & Somekh, B. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of educational action research. London: Sage Publications. Posner, G. (1998). Análisis del Currículo. (2nd ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Riel, M. (2014). Action Research Tutorial. Retrieved from http://ccar.wikispaces.com/AR+Tutorial Somekh, B. (2006). Action research: A methodology for change and development. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and Learning with ICT: Researching the art of Innovation. London: Routledge. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to currículum research and development. London: Heinemann. Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador (UPEL). (2011). Documento Base del Currículo UPEL 2011. Mayo. Mimeo. Winter, R. (2003) The patchwork text: a radical re-assessment of course work assignments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, special issue, 40(2), 112–122. Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, “How do I improve my practice? Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41–52. Whitehead, J. (1993). The growth of educational knowledge: Creating your own living educational theories. Bournemouth: Hyde. Zeichner, K. (2000). Educational action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participating inquiry and practice (pp. 273–283). London: Sage.

134


VASSILIS TSAFOS

THE REFLECTIVE PERSPECTIVE OF NARRATIVE IN EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION

Classrooms are, for the most part, safe places, generally free from scrutiny, where teachers are free to live stories of practice. These lived stories are essentially secret ones. Furthermore, when these secret lived stories are told, they are, for the most part, told to other teachers in other secret places. When teachers move out of their classrooms into the out-of-classroom place on the landscape, they often live and tell cover stories, stories in which they portray themselves as experts, certain characters whose teacher stories fit within the acceptable range of the story of school being lived in the school. Cover stories enable teachers whose teacher stories are marginalized by whatever the current story of school is to continue to practice and to sustain their teacher stories. (Clandinin & Connelly, 1996, p. 25) Qualitative educational approaches and practical educational research have enjoyed increasingly wide acceptance over the last decades. Both the emerging non positivist epistemological framework and the resulting focus on the educators’ voices promoted and supported various alternative approaches to the school institution and the educational process. This alternative framework gradually led to the creation of both educational action research and narrative research. This paper attempts to pinpoint the intersection points of these two research approaches and investigate their combination, aiming at nurturing reflective practitioners, in the context of continuous professional development and growth. EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORK

Postmodernism and Education After the mid-20th century and particularly around the 1990s, a new philosophical ideal appears (Foucault, 1988); a general alternative viewing of the world, called postmodernism because of how it transcended modernism. Influenced by new emerging ways of thinking, social organisation and life, the new view attempts to define and interpret this emerging viewing of reality in all its dimensions. As would be expected, the new view has also influenced how we approach education as theory F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 135–145. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


V. TSAFOS

and practice, as well as the educational process, its determining parameters and school as an institution. Initially, postmodernism challenged the homogenising logic of the grand narratives of education, and generalisable rules gradually lost their validity and legitimacy. A different approach to educational reality emerged and was tested, based on investigating particular, specific, unique educational situations. In this epistemological framework, pedagogy stopped being considered an applied science, as it can no longer be based on universal laws. The grand narratives of pedagogy theorists were replaced by narratives of a smaller scope, particularly by narratives of participants in the educational process. These narratives, particularly when they derive from dialectic and reflective investigation of educational action, are not viewed as arbitrary approaches to educational reality, nor are they invalidated in the name of discourse-bound neutrality. In contrast, these narratives have a valid claim on legitimacy, as they reveal various alternative interpretations. The Hermeneutic Approach as an Early Postmodern Approach The initial transition to postmodernism can be traced to early 20th century hermeneutics, the epistemological answer of humanities to the dominance of positivism. The theoretical framework was provided by the German hermeneutic school, according to which “social world is an internally contested one in which dissensus is pervasive and consequently, educational and curriculum theory should start from this baseline, not from the uncritical pursuit of methodological ideals of nature science” (Autio, 2003, p. 314). The hermeneutic approach is based on the relationship between cause and effect and seeks explanations in an interpretive understanding. This provided an alternative epistemological basis for the social sciences, which cannot rely on the deterministic causal explanations of positive sciences. Human actions result from our moral choices and commitments, and can only be interpreted through our values, expectations and intentions, which are both historical and social. We understand the educational act based on the meaning attributed to it by its agents, who operate in a specific social framework (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Therefore, in order to understand human actions we need to comprehend the “subjective meaning” attributed to them by the acting agents, who operate in a culturally and socially specific space and time. The focus on subjects and communication proposes the concepts of understanding action and meaning instead of the positivist notions of interpretation, prediction and control (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, pp. 111-112). Social researchers seek to reveal the subjective meaning of phenomena for participant actors, and at the same time to understand the social framework that shapes the subjective meaning and dictates the hermeneutic framework to a great extent. In education, this hermeneutic understanding means that specific practices are understood through reflection, which is thus turned into theory of practice. Educational phenomena are interpreted based on classroom practice, in light of the 136



teacher’s experiences and gradually developed perspective. In this epistemological framework, educational research calls for teachers to study both their practice and the meaning they attribute to it and review the perceptions and habits they have subconsciously incorporated into it. By reflecting on their educational experiences and investigating the subjective meaning they attribute to them, teachers construct meanings, interpretations and new understandings of their practices and their selves (Attard, 2012, p. 165). This reflexive process permits a new self-understanding in light of experiences. At this point, when teachers converse with their experiences and consequently with their stories (Clandinin & Conelly, 2000, p. 189) inquiry occurs (Langley, 2012, p. 43). It is an open-ended inquiry that requires constant re-planning based on systematic evaluation. QUALITATIVE EDUCATIONAL APPROACH: NARRATIVE AND ACTION RESEARCH

Narrative Research The challenging of the positivist focus on prediction and of the “scientific” control of educational situations and the turn towards investigating the parameters of specific educational context involving all participants of the educational process, carrying their own history, has led to the creation of more qualitative research approaches. School is turned from an abstract atemporal construct into a specific educational institution with distinct educational action, organised and developed under specific socio-cultural conditions. In this epistemological framework, one of the various qualitative approaches to reality that developed was narrative research. This approach resonates the postmodernist perspective on constructing knowledge on multiple levels with multiple voices and on legitimising personal interpretations. It recognises and promotes the important role of the subject as the master of specific knowledge and the bearer of a specific perspective, in terms of perceiving and (re)constructing reality. According to this view, “experience is interpreted by means of open processes dependent on the context” (Colombo, 2003, p. 2); it depends on how the context is approached and on the interactions developed in the educational framework. This subjective perception is then mediated by means of the language, discourses and narrations organising this experience (Colombo, 2003, p. 2). As the final product of this process, the narrative text organises and reshapes this perception, through linguistic choices that reflect latent hermeneutical axes. Teachers attribute meaning to the educational experience by providing it with a narrative form. Therefore, narration is not a simple description of facts, but includes, explicitly or implicitly, the actors’ justification and motives; it is a form of interpreting action. Based on the view that “education and educational research is the construction and reconstruction of personal and social stories; learners, teachers, and researchers 137


V. TSAFOS

are storytellers and characters in their own and other’s stories” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 2), numerous studies since the 1980s have utilised narrative research in order to comprehend and enhance classroom practice (Ayers, Quinn, Stovall & Scheiern, 2008, p. 307). According to Clandinin & Connelly, narration is “the making of meaning from personal experience via a process of reflection in which storytelling is the key element and in which metaphors and folk knowledge take their place” (1990, p. 245). Narration involves reconstructing experience, based on the teachers’ practical knowledge, from their action in specific educational contexts and the creation of their educational memory during their professional career. Teachers’ narrative research focuses on their practical professional knowledge, promoting and legitimising it. Clandinin & Connelly (1986) introduced the investigation of practical knowledge through the teachers’ narratives, coining the term personal knowledge to express the knowledge that emerges from experience. They recognised teachers as individuals who master dynamic, not static, knowledge, which determines their action and can be constantly expanded and reviewed through this action (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988, p. 25). The study of teachers’ narratives reveals their practical knowledge and its impact on the teaching act. It can evolve into self-study, which promotes professional selfawareness and can create knowledge in the educational field (Clandinin & Connelly, 2004, p. 597). Most importantly, this approach focuses on the teachers’ interpretations and on the justification of their choices through their narratives (Behar-Horenstein, 1999, p. 92), recognising the teachers’ important role in shaping the educational act (Clandinin & Connelly, 1990, p. 246). Narrative as a Research Tool In this context, narration is seen as a research tool that can function in two ways: – It provides access to the hermeneutical framework based on which teachers interpret their action and construct their narratives. In such a non-normative hermeneutical approach, narration is not investigated in terms of an external reality, predetermined by external parameters, researchers or academics. In contrast, the research on the teachers’ narratives addresses personal meanings and their respective hermeneutical framework, gradually developed through the narrators’ personal experience, theoretical knowledge, educational values and aspirations, professional or otherwise. As Elliott reports, narrative “provides a form of communication in which an individual can externalise his or her feelings and […] indicate which elements of those experiences are most significant” (2005, p. 4). In this way, the teachers’ interpretive strategies are studied and revealed in the researchers’ narratives, particularly the research reports written narratives. After all, writing is a way of thinking that helps writers understand themselves, as well as their actions experiences, thoughts and emotions (Attard, 2012, p. 163). 138



– It can be used by narrating teachers to develop hermeneutic and reflective strategies. Narratives are not a reproduction of reality. Constructed and interpreted by narrators who attempt to reconstruct and organise their everyday living experiences (Attard, 2012, p. 163), narratives are more than static descriptions. When the narrators conduct research, their reconstructions allow the investigation of hermeneutical constructs and the respective interpretive tools, particularly during the evaluation of educational action, in order to reconstruct it. Evaluation is a reconstructed narration based on action, a narration that “transform[s] the present and shape[s] the future for us and our students, making it better and richer than the past” (Dyson & Genishi, 1994, as cited in Webster & Mertova, 2007, p. 2). In this case, narratives construct the present opening up new ways and perspectives for reconstructing it and redefining the supporting hermeneutical constructs and theoretical framework. The narratives that depict educational design link lived experience with the present and with alternative future perspectives (Colombo, 2003, p. 8). Narratives produced during an educational intervention, especially evaluation narratives, both reveal new educational data and allow the narrators to realise and redefine their hermeneutical constructs. Narrative and Educational Action Research Intersection points. One qualitative approach to educational reality is educational action research, a research approach that reflects the same epistemological context with narrative research, at least in its practical and critical form. Moreover, these two approaches interact in various research occasions. In terms of epistemological framework, both educational action research and narrative research meet two main epistemological criteria, which are inter-related and interdependent: The need to transcend the boundaries between research and practice (Webster & Mertova, 2007, p. 10) and the need for practitioners to participate in producing, expanding, reshaping and disseminating practical knowledge. “Action research and narrative inquiry are participatory by nature” (Heikkinen et al., 2012, p. 18). Another epistemological intersection point is that both approaches reflect the same perception on the validity of personal perspective in approaching the educational process. The practical and critical/emancipatory forms of educational action research in particular are epistemologically grounded in non-positivist assumptions, and, like narrative research, are therefore based on revealing and investigating subjective interpretations, on acknowledging the relational and contextualising the research (Langley, 2012, p. 44). For both these forms of educational action research, as well as for narrative research, the research revolves around the attribution of subjective meaning through reflection processes which lead to awareness, new interpretations and development. As Langley points out, “it is at the point where the story moves away from being a fixed entity and is lived and relived in the telling and retelling that the connection with action research comes” (2012, p. 43). 139


V. TSAFOS

Apart from their common perspective and epistemological framework, there are more specific intersection points between the two research approaches. Narration is an important parameter of educational action research development. Throughout an action research project, from diagnosing the situation to evaluating the intervention and redesigning, teachers narrate. Through their narrations, teachers represent and interpret in a specific way both the educational framework and their intervention in it. This narration implies a specific perspective, which implies choices. “The starting-point of narrative thinking is that the research report is a narrative story produced by the researcher, not an image-like replica” (Heikkinen et al., 2007, p. 11). Educational action research can be considered a constant process of co-producing various narrations, constantly reshaping and redefining the action research. Both approaches permit change and improvement, while also providing them with a solid basis and a systematic perspective. According to Dick (2001), action research is a flexible spiral process which allows change and improvement in one hand and research in the other hand to be achieved at the same time. The understanding obtained through research allows more informed change and at the same time is informed by that change. As people affected by the change are usually involved in the action research, the new understanding is shared by all and the change is pursued with commitment. By (re)living and (re)telling their stories, narrators allow for spaces and gaps that create the right conditions for change. The very philosophy of educational action research recognises the important role of teachers and attributes great importance and value to their narratives. In educational action research, the teachers’ narrative, that is the testimony of their personal perspective, instigates the search for alternative variants. In the words of Somekh (2006): “The self can be said to be a “research instrument”, and action researchers need to be able to take into account their own subjectivity as an important component of meaning making” (p. 14). Teachers organise their narratives based on their personal theories, and construct them as their practical knowledge evolves and develops. In this context, both research approaches contribute to the recognition of the teachers’ professional identity and shape their professional development. By realising their personal theory and studying their practical knowledge as they develop, teachers create the conditions for their enhancement and reshaping as practitioners. The reflective perspective of narrative in educational action research. In the action research context, the investigation, awareness, and possible reshaping of practical knowledge are neither granted, nor result naturally from the research process. They require conditions for reflection during the production and investigation of the narration at the evaluation and redesign phase. In an educational action research project aiming to enhance the educational process, reflection is an important development parameter requiring participants to realise their practical knowledge and the personal educational theory that influences it. This realisation can then 140



lead to the reflective investigation of educational values, possibly viewing them as problematic. “The actors interpret events and actions not so much by imposing on them a fixed structure as by ‘translating’ the events and actions over time and by developing new frameworks and ‘stories’ for their (re)interpretation” (Lanzara, 1995, as cited in Colombo, 2003, p. 3). In the action research framework, awareness-creating reflection and any reshaping of practical knowledge occur not individually, but through the participants’ interactions throughout the educational research. In the context of inter-subjective control, various narratives are produced and constantly reshaped by combining different perspectives and voices in dialogue. As Brunner points out, “narrative may also be described as an interactive practice with all the give and take of conversation when it values a multiplicity of voices and perspectives” (1994, p. 17). In this intersubjective dialogue, participants communicate and disclose their assumptions as well as practical theories, beliefs and understandings (Attard, 2012, p. 167). If the research group has developed a reflective investigative climate in an equity context, action researchers can recognise that their narrative is no more true than the narrative of any other participant; it is simply an instigation of discussion, their personal contribution to the development of collective reflection. The dialogue is developed based “on the idea that social reality is constructed as a dialectical process in interpersonal discussion” (Heikkinen et al., 2007, p. 13). Respecting this idea, action researchers “give space to different voices and interpretations of the same events” (Heikkinen et al., 2012, p. 9), highlighting the stratification of social reality. New narratives shape new alternative versions of educational reality, and their value is collectively investigated in successive cycles of design, action, reflection and redesign. It is a process of constant attribution of meaning to the educational process through the production of new narratives, in the context of the participants’ dialogue and reflective practices and the development of the educational action research and its reshaping perspective. The interpretive and critical/emancipatory versions of educational action research require the contemplative investigation of lived practice, which can become critical interpretive and reflective, gradually and under the right circumstances (Slattery et al., 2007). The process is reflective, as participants are open to communication and inter-communication in order to attribute new meanings and review their individual and collective beliefs. It is also critical, as reviewed narratives gradually reveal the ideological nature of values and beliefs and challenge institutional structures and pedagogical practices involved in relationships of dominance and oppression. As more complex hermeneutic categories are developed, problems are constantly redefined. The investigation of narratives emerging during the development of educational action research can reveal: – The role of narratives in attributing meaning to action, in reflective educational research. The study of narrative strategies, chosen by teachers to attribute meaning to educational reality, reflects their perspective and its determining parameters. 141


V. TSAFOS

– The temporary nature of the hermeneutical framework, particularly when the action research context of producing and studying the narratives permits dialogue between different voices and reveals alternative narratives. The reflective context of action research can de-naturalise taken for granted hermeneutical constructs and challenge dominant theory. By accepting different perspectives, investigating and discussing subjective meanings, and conducting inter-subjective control to establish validity, educational values and established beliefs can be re-negotiated. – The possibility to produce alternative narratives, in the perspective of changing the educational context and the hermeneutical framework through which we approach it. When these narratives are produced and investigated in an open action framework, particularly in terms of the educational act during educational action research, they guide narrators to reflectively investigate their own narrations. By attributing new meaning to the educational act, in order to enhance it, narratives provide the basis for seeking alternative narratives/meanings. – The dynamic developed in the context of reflective teaching, developed along with action. In this framework, the teachers’ narratives are more than a means used to narrate their experience. Produced during the investigation of educational reality in order to improve it, the narratives become a semiotic tool, supporting the teachers’ development. In conclusion we could claim that, under specific circumstances, educational action research can lead to a constant attribution of meaning to the educational reality through successive narratives and support their individual and collective negotiation. This orientation allows for a context of reflection and action through which we can investigate the teachers’ perspectives, the respective hermeneutical constructs, and the underlying educational theory. This reflection can change and improve both the educational act and the teachers / researchers / narrators. Through this change, teachers can become emancipated stakeholders in their schools or professional communities, revealing the great contribution of this alternative research approach combination: a change based on the teachers’ initiatives in the school environment; teachers who take the lead in a systematic research and recognise their personal educational theory and the institutional restrictions in an effort to underpin them; multiple voices which contribute to the reconstruction of the education process. DISCUSSION: RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES

In this context, we should investigate the degree to which this dynamic potential can be developed, when teachers researchers systematically study their own narratives, during the design, reflection and evaluation phases; that is, if teachers researchers actually embrace the philosophy and principles of action research and study their own narratives, consciously combining these two research approaches. 142



This combination may represent a much needed systematic educational action research tool. Action researchers who use narrative inquiry could study their research diary or the narratives produced in their research reports. They could investigate the different voices reproduced in them, the construction and the improvement of their reflective thinking, how they understand the situation and which personal and contextual parameters influence it. The stories we write put us into conversation with ourselves as well as with our readers. In conversation with ourselves we expose our vulnerabilities, choices and values. We take measure of our uncertainties, our mixed emotions and the multiple layers of our experience. (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p. 748) The benefit is even greater when during action research the researchers realise how these narratives are developed and evolved or when they consciously try to produce alternative narratives that reflect the new reality they attempt to shape. It would also be particularly interesting to investigate the meaning and structure of teacher education, in light of the two research approaches intersection points. How can undergraduate student teachers researchers utilise such (self) research actions in order to familiarise themselves with a reflective approach to the educational process, challenging the dominant educational and research culture of positivism and technical rationality? Moreover, to which extent can student teachers researchers negotiate their narratives in order to recognise themselves as producers of valid knowledge, capable of shaping and supporting their professional development (Johnson & Colombeck, 2002, p. 3)? For instance, it would be very important to investigate the impact of this combination on student teachers’ self-awareness during their Practicum in their teacher education programme. Student teachers could study their diaries or portfolios (Heikkinen, 2002), or their research reports produced during their participation in action research. To which extent could this study help them: a) examine their preexisting beliefs and preconceptions that affect their point of view and their learning and cannot be easily changed (Richardson, 2003), b) make explicit their tacit knowledge from their own school experience, and c) become more reflective. Can student teachers recognise the multiple internal or external restrictions of educational action and construct new narratives in an effort to overcome them? To which extent can such a process instigate a dialogue between student teachers and their educators, to develop an interpretive community (Frydaki, 2011) which engages in dialogue, develops, reviews and changes? Such a dialogue would lead us from one form of understanding (attribution of meaning to actions), to understanding as a method of researching and redefining this primary understanding. It is very important to investigate the contribution of such a hermeneutic process in the critical and reflective negotiation of narratives by the narrators themselves in the context of developing educational action research.

143


V. TSAFOS

REFERENCES Attard, K. (2012). The role of narrative writing in improving professional practice. Educational Action Research, 20(1), 161–175. Autio, T. (2003). Postmodern paradoxes in Finland: The confinements of rationality in curriculum studies. In W. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 301–328). New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Ayers, W., Quinn, T., Stovall, D. O., & Scheiern, L. (2008). Teachers’ experience of curriculum: Policy, pedagogy and situation. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 306–326). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Behar-Horenstein, L. S. (1999). Narrative research: Understanding teaching and teacher thinking. In A. C. Ornstein, & L. A. Behar-Horenstein (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (pp. 90–102). Boston, MA: Lllyn and Bacon. Brunner, D. P. (1994). Inquiry and reflection: Framing narrative practice in education. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Dick, B. (2001). Action research: Action and research. In S. Sankaran, B. Dick, R. Passfield, & P. Swepson (Eds.), Effective change management using action learning and action research (pp. 21–27). Lismore: Southern Cross University Press. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical. Education, knowledge and action research. London: The Falmer Press. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. London: Falmer. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (1990). Narrative experience and the study of curriculum. Cambridge Journal of Education, 20(3), 241–254. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teachers’ stories – stories of teachers – School stories – Stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (2004). Knowledge, narrative and self-study. In J. Loughran, M. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russel (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 575–600). Boston: Kluwer Academic. Colombo, M. (2003). Reflexivity and narratives in action research: A discursive approach [34 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4(2), Art. 9, 1–14. Retrieved January 02, 2012 from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs030291 Connelly, M., & Clandinin, J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Connelly, M., & Clandinin, J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14. Foucault, M. (1988). What is enlightenment? (St. Rozani, Trans.). Athens: Erasmos. (Original work published 1984) [Text in Greek]. Elliott, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 733–768). London: Sage. Frydaki, E. (2011). Fostering humanity through interpretive dialogue in teachers’ communities. In W. Veugelers (Ed.), Education and humanism. Linking autonomy and humanity (pp. 163–179). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Heikkinen, H. (2002). Telling stories in teacher education. A narrative-biographical view on portfolio work. In: Huttunen, R, Heikkinen, H. & Syrjälä, L. (Eds), Narrative research. Voices of teachers and philosophers (pp. 123–142). Jyväskylä: Sophi. Heikkinen, H. L. T., Huttunen, R., & Syrjälä, L. (2007). Action research as narrative: Five principles for validation. Educational Action Research, 15(1), 5–19. Heikkinen, H. L. T., Huttunen, R., & Syrjälä, L. (2012). Action research as narrative: Five principles for validation revisited. Educational Action Research, 20(1), 5–21.

144


THE REFLECTIVE PERSPECTIVE OF NARRATIVE IN EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH Langley, D. (2012). Women reaching women: a story of change. The role of narrative in building trust and commitment during an action research project. Educational Action Research, 20(1), 41–53. Johnson, K. E., & Colombeck, P. R. (2002). Teachers narrative inquiry as professional development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Rath, & A. C. McAninch (Eds.), Advances in Teacher Education series, 6 (pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Slattery, P., Krasny, K. A., & O’Malley, M. P. (2007). Hermeneutics, aesthetics, and the quest for answerability: A dialogic possibility for reconceptualizing the interpretive process in curriculum studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(5), 537–558. Somekh, B. (2006). Action research: A methodology for teaching and development. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Webster, L., & Mertova, P. (2007). Using narrative inquiry as a research method. An introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and teaching. London and New York: Routledge.

145



MARIA ANASTASIADIS, ARNO HEIMGARTNER, HELGA KITTL-SATRAN & MICHAEL WRENTSCHUR

PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN SOCIAL WORK

SPHERES OF PARTICIPATION AND ASPECTS OF PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN FIELDS OF SOCIAL WORK

Whereas the discussion in the past was mainly related to political participation and volunteering (Walther, 2010), the recent discussion links participation to a general shaping of the society (Heimgartner, 2009). To gain an overview, different collections of fields of society are in use, e.g. Guggisberg (2004) differentiates between economic, social, cultural and political dimensions. Also a similarity to the capital forms in sociological tradition is evident (Lederer, 2005). In social work we can find this high variety of participatory and change-related themes as well. Credo of a Common Producer-Cooperation Practical social work is enlarging the possibilities of implementation of participation. For instance, the orientation to the principles of the United Nations convention on children’s rights leads to a screening of all steps during the case procedure in children and youth welfare, on which basis decisions are made for which a consensual cooperation of professionals and clients is necessary. Accordingly, different standards of institutional care arrange at different transitions the inclusion of the children and youth in the decision processes (e.g. Quality4Children, 2002). This requirement is moreover often accompanied by an educational task. The competences of children and youth should be increased, so that they are able to play a serious part in appropriate methodological involvement. Similar perceptions can be made in social work with different target groups. Frequently, a common co-production is established, which means that according to an orientation to “a draft into the open” (Grunwald & Thiersch, 2004, p. 31) processes are negotiated, options are made visible, and agreements are made on the basis of aims and action steps. As a further example, the community workers ensure that community members articulate their interests. After this, common attempts are launched to shape the community and society on individual, social, and political levels and in different contexts (Sing & Heimgartner, 2009). The transfer of such a cooperative thinking seems to be an obvious, ethical demand for congruency in the empirical research of social work.



M. ANASTASIADIS, A. HEIMGARTNER, H. KITTL-SATRAN & M. WRENTSCHUR

Also, in the research area it is valid that social research serves the interests of the research group not only primarily, but it should broadly achieve the knowledge and action needs of the population with regard to their perspectives and aims. A lot of research details, such as the research question, methodological instruments, research design, and the interpretation constitute empirical research. The need for participatory research is thus necessitated by the difference between the client and the professional perspective. Characteristics of Participatory Research Participatory research is not a research method – it is a strategy or a specific style of research which has roots in the very beginnings of action research in the 1960s (Berghold & Thomas, 2010; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005). Empirical research in the context of social work deals generally with methods how the demand of a subject status and the relevance of an individual construction can be fulfilled (e.g. narrative or half-standardized interviews). However, the democratic view has been strongly related to qualitative methods up to now, in which the answers are open to a large extent. That the research process itself is at least partly shaped (e.g. through the selection of an issue, the construction of instruments, decisions regarding design, the interpretation process) as a possibility of self-representation of specific target groups has nevertheless only quite recently been developed. Regarding the broad spectrum of contexts, approaches and forms of participatory research in general, some common core principles can be identified: – Not research on or about people but with people, the research process is influenced by participants; – To link theory closer to practice and to perceive actors as experts of their everyday life; – Research is seen as a trigger for social change and development and it is led by specific interests of various interest groups, esp. to empower marginalised persons; – Research opens public spheres, which allow an open communication between various actors with a view to innovation. These principles accept the subjectivity of the participants as co-researchers (Vogel & Truninger, 2012). Participatory research is when the research process itself or important parts of the research process are co-determined by persons who are involved as clients or professionals. Due to these different roles, we suggest to distinguish between participatory client research and participatory professional research. In contrast to this, client-related research is defined as research which uses a prepared method to contact or ask clients using prepared questions. In the case of professional-related research, the methods are directed to professionals. To point out the differences of participatory research, the elements of participation have to be specified. 148



Specification of Participation Participation is a sophisticated construct. As a classical form of differentiation, the steps of participation due to the ladder of participation of Arnstein (1969) can be characterized. Following the modification of Wright, Block and Unger (2007) exploitation, command, information, hearing, inclusion, co-determination, transfer of decision, decision, and self-organization are ordered. If one looks at the scientific literature, it is noticeable that until now the labeling of the research access is simply done by “participatory research”, although different forms and levels of participatory research are present, which should be shown in the following margin description. The categories have been developed jointly between the authors and are based on results from a round table discussion with experts at the CARN conference in Vienna 2011. • Full vs. partly participatory research A complete participatory research means that the whole research process is determined by clients or professionals. As an example for this method, the research workshop can be mentioned (Heimgartner & Pilch Ortega Hernandez, 2012). It is important in such a study that the thematic orientation, methodological design, and the definition of the sample, etc., are developed throughout by the democratic research team. A consequence of this form is that the initiating researchers cannot plan the research process in detail in advance. On the other hand, research projects exist in which single parts of the research are released. In an outreach project of Heimgartner (2001), juveniles performed the quantitative interviews. The concept and other methods of the project were left to the guiding researchers. • Expertise of everyday life or professionalization A further distinction is related to the acceptance of the existing research competences. On the one hand, researchers of participatory studies trust people’s expertise of everyday life. Curiosity and a general comprehension of systematizing and interpretation are regarded as sufficient. Sometimes a process of a lingual and analytic adaptation happens that is not only seen as sufficient, but also judged as a sign of participatory research which adopts the results of research to the applied contexts. On the other hand, it is seen as necessary to impart competences. In such studies, phases of learning and acculturation are put in front to the research study to achieve a certain quality of research. • Payment vs. privately volunteering or educational / employment frame The role creation is also influenced by the question of payment. It makes a difference if the inclusion means volunteering from the client side or if an equal payment of all participating persons is guaranteed. On the side of the professionals, the distinction is often between an additional effort during the work time or a regular payment and a release for the research involvement. Although research projects are often confronted 149



with narrow financial limits, a payment signalizes appreciation and authentication on this level. Research is marked and honored through payment as an accepted work type of economic society. Identification with the research role can be more easily established in paid settings. • Local vs. political intention of change Not specifically, but especially relevant for participatory research is the goal dimension of the research. The question is if the dissemination concept is limited to the local, social environment of the participants or if it hunts a political intention for a broad social development. Political participatory research is an achievement which abandons the development terrain of single institutions and works towards corporate knowledge and restructuring. The participation achieves then a double perspective: the participation in the research project is combined with participation in the transition of society. The following three research projects are examples of different participatory research settings, which refer to the above discussed principles and specific elements of participation. They show the methodological refinement as well as the intention of social change and they are based on different forms of collaboration and involvement trying to empower and emancipate different stakeholders. YOUTH RESEARCH ON THE PERCEPTION OF VIOLENCE

In this research project, it was attempted to implement participatory research strategies in order to explore the social realities of the perception of violence from a youth-perspective. One of the central aims of this project was to involve the young people in the entire research process (Kittl-Satran, 2011). Participatory elements are the following: Pupils could select between different offered research methods. They partly conducted the different methods and they could determine the duration of the research phases as well as the dissemination activities. Therefore this study can be understood as partly participatory research, in which the pupil’s expertise of everyday life has been accepted. The process was initiated in an educational frame, but it had important parts of voluntary activities, as they also worked in their leisure time. The project indented to sensitize the young pupils in their perception of violence in order to change their behavior. Goal of the Project The project sought to answer the questions of what understanding youth have about the concept of violence and how they perceive violence in their own environments. The specification of the concept of violence was important because youth are often assumed to have the same understanding of “violence” as researchers. The goal of the project was to gain new knowledge about the perception of violence from the

150



point of view of youth by means of a task-based approach and various methods of analysis. It was not the intention of this research project to intervene or to make suggestions for violence reduction at this school. Rather, the goal of this project was to consider the pupils as experts on their own living environments, and to include them in all aspects and phases of the research project, with the intended result that they become sensitized to violence as a theme as well as introduced to the process of reflection. In participatory research, the researchers give up their position of power as far as possible, and the participants are actively involved in the research process. The participants are seen as experts on their own living environment, and thus the distinction between the roles of researcher and participant is eliminated. This means that there are many decisions to be made over the course of the entire research process. Questions must be raised as to how far and in what form the participants are able to participate as collaborative co-researchers. Sample This project was carried out in a secondary school in Austria, where pupils come from various social backgrounds. More than one-third of the pupils come from unstable family situations. In the past few years, there has been a noticeable rise in the readiness of pupils to resort to violence, most often in non-school settings, such as on the way to and from school, or during break periods. Phases The project was divided into four phases – preparation, data collection, data analysis and the presentation of results. The preparation phase was used to inform pupils about the project, as well as to get their consent to take part in the study. It was also particularly important to convey to them their new roles as researchers, to accustom them to what this meant, and to help them understand the participatory style of their parts in the research project. This phase also saw the formation of our research team, and after a democratic vote, the Project Leader was elected. The pupils took on the role of Project Co-researchers. Next, a so-called “Code of Honor” was developed. The pupils established rules with which it would be possible to work together. In order to strengthen the pupils’ identification with the project, they split into groups to brainstorm project names and logos, and the final decision for both was made according to a group vote. In the data collection phase, various methods were used which put special emphasis on the subjective experience and points of view of the participants. Often, acquired knowledge is considered less important than the process of reflection, which requires various interactions between researcher and participant (Wrentschur, 2009). The fun of working together is part of the participatory research approach.

151



That individuals are recognized as equal partners, are taken seriously, and that they are included in the decision-making process are essential dimensions of lifeexperience. To answer the first research question “What is violence?” three different exercises were used in order to grasp the pupils’ understanding of violence. In the exercise, “Power, Powerlessness and the Abuse of Power”, the pupils divided themselves into teams of two, and then acted out a role-play scenario which looked at the relationship between power and powerlessness. Through this simulation, the pupils were able to experience both the feeling of having power, as well as the feeling of being powerless, and they were also sensitized to the potential for the abuse of power in their own behavior. In the exercise “Faces of Violence”, we discussed the fact that there are many kinds of violence, including verbal abuse. One part of this exercise included group work – with the boys and girls separated – to write an ABCs of bad words. This means that the pupils wrote an ABC-list of all the insults and bad words they could think of. In the following period of reflection we discussed the meaning of the words they used, which words were especially hurtful, and why those words in particular were so offensive. The third way in which we looked at youth definitions of violence was simply to ask the pupils to write their own definitions. They were each asked to finish the sentence “Violence is…”. To answer the second research question about “youth’s perception of violence”, a variety of approaches were used. Over a few weeks pupils kept “research diaries”, in which they described what kind of behavior they found violent, where they observed violence, and how they felt at the time. Another approach to this question was to conduct interviews. These interviews, however, were not conducted by the project leader, but rather by the pupils themselves. We worked on the questions together, first brainstorming questions in small groups, and then voting on the final selection. The interviews were tape-recorded by the pupils. The pupils also conducted an “analysis of their own experiences with violence”. On a scale of one to ten, the pupils anonymously rated the extent to which they were personally affected by violence, and how violent they would consider themselves to be. The next exercise was the “role-playing of violent situations”. Groups of three or four pupils rehearsed violent situations that they had either observed or experienced. These scenes were performed and finally discussed. The young co-researchers were also involved in the process of analysis. For example, pupils made a so-called Hit List of swear words by choosing the most common words from the previous list of insults. Using this list, pupils discussed which expressions were the most hurtful. In analyzing the definitions of violence, we tried to categorize the responses, which were divided by gender. To disseminate our work together, the project was presented and its results were shared at the Social Pedagogical Symposium in Graz as a workshop run by ten of my co-researchers, who volunteered to present it. Summing up, the young pupils gained new perspectives on violence and they learned via reflections as researchers different competencies, which are useful in their everyday life. 152



FORUM THEATRE AS AN EMANCIPATORY AND PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH METHOD IN SOCIAL WORK

With the help of Forum Theatre – a creative and participatory theatre and research method – people directly affected by different social problems receive support in their own active (re)search on how to recognise, reflect on, and (if possible) change, their real social lives as a basis for possible suggestions and demands addressed to the relevant institutions and politicians. In this way, the drama-based, participatory research process offers and activates different levels of personal, social and political change and participation. What is Forum Theatre? Forum Theatre as a method of the Theatre of the Oppressed (Boal, 1996; Wrentschur, 2003, 2008), can be described (in one reading) as an interactive form of theatrical performance in which the public is invited to take part in what happens on stage, to try out ideas for solutions or changes in a social or political conflict or a problem shown on stage. By watching Forum Theatre on stage, the spectators witness how social reality impacts on individuals. They also experience the unsuccessful struggle of people who fight for their concerns or rights. The forum phase presents the audience with an opportunity to become actively involved in the performance and to try and change the outcome of the story. They can assume the roles of those characters on stage that appear powerless in the presented conflict or fail to reach their desired goals. The new player can explore alternative pathways and behaviours to change the course of the story. The other actors stay in their roles and react to the change while maintaining the authenticity of their characters – the same as in real life. The theatrical space opens towards a “sociological experimentation”, this interactive performance process can be understood as a collective brainstorming and researching process shared and made by many people, the audience, the spectators, that become spect-actors within this process. Results of this process may serve as impulses for many different forms of action, outside the ‘aesthetic space’. In another reading, Forum Theatre denotes a group dynamic triggered off by drama performance methods: A dynamic that is characterised by a collective search for ways of acting and changing stressful, oppressive situations or structures. Turning individual, subjective experiences into theatre and reflecting on them with the help of theatrical methods of learning and research leads to condensations in the shape of scenes and images that can be worked up creatively in many different ways. Forum Theatre claims to be an emancipatory method of research that combines processes such as gaining understanding and awareness raising with the search for change in one’s individual, social and political real life. In those ways, Forum Theatre is in the tradition of emancipatory theories of education along the lines proposed by Freire (1982). It focuses first and foremost on (re)presenting, analysing and changing power relations, from the point of view of people who are ‘powerless’. With reference to 153



the theory of habitus and capitalia by Pierre Bourdieu (1993, 2001) Forum Theatre on the one hand examines spaces for action within habitual constraints, and on the other hand, it puts the question about what capital resources can be activated to open up more opportunities for social participation and for socially disadvantaged groups. Forum Theatre can be also connected with the perspective of systemic theory, which opens perception to small impulses and changes and their sometimes big effects in complex social systems. Forum Theatre as a Method of Participatory Research Forum Theatre follows a participatory research paradigm, which may be understood as a reflective process of problem-solving undertaken by individuals and groups working with others in teams, or as part of a ‘community of practice’. In this sense Forum Theatre is understood as an emancipatory process of research and of consciousness raising based on a tie-up of research and action. Understanding and insight are led by practical and political interests of personal, social and political change, and are intimately connected with people’s practical lives. From a similar position based on similar interests, participants intervene in social reality to change it or to change their own attitude to it. In relation to research methodologies, Forum Theatre is connected to Biographical Self-Reflection (Gipser, 1996), Sociological Experimentation (Koch, 1988, p. 45), the concept of Performance Ethnography (Winter, 2009) and Participatory Action Research (Hale, 2007) that effectively intervene in social and political space. As a method of participatory social research Forum Theatre enlarges and rounds off the range of research possibilities, bringing perspectives and viewpoints of participating stakeholders into the picture. It is the people directly concerned that create or shape a collective process that leaves no-one cold. Such research methods take their inspiration from everyday situations, from the everyday lives of stakeholders, theatrical performance and relevant reflection including the idea of finding new ideas and solution for actions on different levels. These processes of research, being both aesthetic and social, oscillate between real life social relations, and those of the theatre. The process itself follows phases and steps which can be summarized in the development of a Forum Theatre Play as a) a process of emancipation, creation, research and increasing awareness, b) the interactive performances as a collective (field) research with the public and c) evaluation, transfer and implementation of results in different contexts of practice and life contexts on personal, social and political levels. In all these steps and phases, the participants are actively involved. The project leaders/ facilitators put scenic/theatrical tools and research methods at participants’ disposal, accompany them while they try out and make practical use of these, reflect results together that have accrued in the process, and carry out the task of making and keeping records. This means again and again structuring the process along the lines of the group’s wishes and interests, fine-tuning decisions with the people concerned, asking new questions, and developing and applying relevant 154



settings in which everyone can participate, or in which as many people as possible can be actively involved. Forum Theatre has been proved to be a method of research which supports emancipatory moves and promotes awareness and insight. Participants in this process have available the perceptions and knowledge generated in this way in a large measure and which may be used directly in the process of coming to terms with real life struggles – which are on-going. In this process, the body is an important tool for research procedures and for the incorporation of action-oriented insights based on those. Over and above these elements, participants have a strong voice in deciding about whether, and (if yes) how, results will reach the public domain, in the shape of acted-out scenes and texts, thereby creating loops that refer back to real life and social spaces (Wrentschur, 2008). Normally, participants are not involved in the organizational or financial framework of the projects, which is mostly done by the project executing organization itself. It was the rule that participants got paid for their research activities. Forum Theatre in Fields of Social Work: Reflection and Results In the last ten years, a series of Forum Theatres in the form of participatory research projects was made in fields of social work. In these projects, the participants who were concerned by certain issues or problems worked together over a longer period. These projects also had a political agenda: Legislative Theatre with Homeless People (2002 – 2004) in the city of Graz, Austria, looked at how Graz might improve its assistance to the homeless, and its homelessness policy. ZusammenSpiel (2008) took its stories out of conflict situations between users of a small park, who had different cultural, ethnical and age backgrounds. The Human Right to Work (since 2009) with migrants’ experiences in Austria when searching for employment. “No dosh to get round: Taking action against poverty” (since 2007) is a project which contributes to improving the situation of people living in precarious financial situations and suggests ideas and propositions for political action. More than 100 different proposals and solution approaches of how to counteract (new) poverty were submitted in 2010. Some of them were discussed with politicians, stakeholders and lobbyists after a performance at the Austrian Parliament on 29.11.2010. As a result of these projects it can be summarized, that Forum Theatre can be a powerful tool of empowerment and participation of people who are affected by a social problem. It helps them to build up a community and stimulates them to communicate their experience and to express their views on an issue which they all share. Each and everyone in a group need to collaborate intensively with all the others. This is not only a precondition for theatre work; it also creates new social contacts and relationships both within the group and outside it, thus increasing the group members’ ‘social capital’. Artistic-aesthetic practice may give leads and stimulate a successful coming-to-terms with one’s life. It may suggest ways of designing or creating lives and lifestyles, through facilitating 155



distance to situations that are difficult, by encouraging the will to live, and by experiencing joy in life and creativity. Described through qualitative empiric research processes (Wrentschur, 2009), participants in the Forum Theatre projects were able to experience themselves not as victims, but rather as masters of their lives. Their powers of expression were enlarged, their individual reasoning and reflective skills were enhanced, and their feelings of self-worth were strengthened. The project became an experimental space for rehearsing alternative action in difficult, stressful situations. Participants’ potential for action (in the sense of empowerment) increased, including their knowledge and skills in demanding and getting their rights – e.g. when approaching authorities or institutions for social support. Forum Theatre encourages people to raise their own voice to look after their interests and wishes. Participants do their best and apply themselves to realize their individual and political objectives: Through Forum Theatre, they participate in various different social and political processes. In the course of all this, it becomes evident that Forum Theatre can be a medium for focusing on social problems, social inequality and social exclusion. Moreover, awareness, and a better knowledge of social institutions and the relevant political framework and conditions, will strengthen and increase the participants’ cultural capital. Approaches such as those were applied in the mentioned projects. They can close the gap between the realities of people affected by poverty or other social problems and the strategies and programs of social policy. In this way, research is tied up with social development that raises ‘social awareness’: such consciousness activates social competences and stimulates processes of individual as well as political empowerment. The use of research procedures and processes that avail themselves of Forum Theatre methods is motivated by an interest in participants’ insights, understanding, concerns, and in questions put by participants – rather than academic questions. In this way, stakeholders in a problematic social situation become participants who are themselves experts in, and of, their situation. By way of a play-back (as it were), through dramatic presentation that projects results back into participants’ lives and into political structures, manifold social forces may be launched that might well be examined further. While individual experiences of the process may have been particular, one-sided and subjective, results do allow a certain degree of generalization. Their validity was seen in the relevant feedbacks and opportunities for transfer, with performances playing an important role (Wrentschur, 2008, 2010). Beside the fact, that participatory research processes using Forum Theatre have to face different challenges like emotional, personal and/or group barriers which are sometimes related to difficult situations in the life of the participants, there remains one important structural problem: Forum Theatre opens a door to political stakeholders and creates a temporary dialogue between them and the participants of the projects. But sometime, it is hard to keep these doors open if there are no formally or legally institutionalized forms of political participation or if there is no general interest or attitude for this participatory approach. 156



THE DELPHI METHOD AS A PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH TOOL

According to Kemmis and McTaggart (2005, p. 563) “participatory research offers an opportunity to create forums in which people can join one another as coparticipants in the struggle to remake the practice in which they interact”. Here, one main characteristic of participatory research is emphasized which tends to establish opinion-forming public spheres as conceptualized by Habermas (1998, p. 435) which allow an open communication between various actors with a view to social innovation. In the following, I will give an example as to how such a public sphere can be created in the area of social work by adapting the Delphi Method as a participatory research tool (Anastasiadis, 2012). The research process itself was mainly initiated by professionals. They are involved as a consulting team throughout the whole research process (e.g. in developing the research design and instruments). Therefore the setting can be defined as partly participatory. Further a broader group of professionals is involved which bring in their everyday life expertise during their regular employment in several organizations. The combined research phases intend to create solutions on complex, social, economic and ecological questions on a strategic and regionalpolitical level. Background The example refers to an on-going cyclic research project which aspires to invent future strategies for and with ecologically oriented work integration social enterprises – shortened ECO-WISE – in order to strengthen their strategic position and decisionmaking abilities as local actors of the global concept of sustainable development1. Briefly ECO-WISEs can be described as not-for-private-profit organizations aiming to improve the inclusion of poorly qualified people or persons with special needs and other societal problems into society by providing temporary jobs with on the job training and social support especially in ecological business areas like repairing or recycling services, waste management, organic food production etc. Previous field exploration activities2 which were initiated by representatives of ECO-WISEs in Austria sought to make their contribution to sustainable development visible. The results of this reflecting phase indicate that they are important partners in handling current societal problems, like joblessness, ecological exploitation and economic exclusion. But the findings also show that their strength as local contributors to sustainable development is not yet tangible neither for internal nor external stakeholders (Anastasiadis & Mayr, 2010). With a view to their strategic position, the results signalize that they can play a decisive role in realizing national political concepts on a local level, like e.g. the promotion of green jobs or local agenda 21 projects and the improvement of placement options for basic income receivers. Moreover, ECO-WISEs can build bridges between those concepts which remain in different policy areas. Regarding their decision-making abilities, 157



the findings signify that they reside in a very dynamical environment between the market, the state and the community. Their existence and performance is closely linked with the development of Labour Market Policy as well as with the needs of the community and their ability to break into new markets where they can sell their services and products in their typical socio-economic way. The immediate challenge is to find ways of balancing these different demands. All in all the results indicate that concrete decisions and future strategies are needed to preserve and encourage their role as sustainable actors. To develop such future prospects an opinion-forming public sphere at a regional level3 should be created in which all important stakeholders are to be involved. This goal which was defined jointly between the researchers and the consulting team of professionals marks the starting point of the participatory research phase which is divided into four steps – methodological setting, invitation of participants, loop of data generation and analysis, presentation of the developed decisions and strategies for further realization. Creating a Public Sphere In order to create such an opinion-forming public sphere, we decided to adopt the Delphi Method as the core approach of our methodological setting. As the name indicates, it draws its inspiration from the Greek oracle which was a source of central knowledge in the ancient world. It can be described briefly as a foresight research tool which uses the knowledge of experts on a specific topic to invent strategies on how to deal with it in the future (Häder, 2002). According to one of the first definitions, Delphi is not a genuine participatory research method. It is more “a method for structuring a group communication process which allows a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem and to come to a common decision” (Linstone and Turoff, 1975, p. 5). A classical Delphi project typically goes through several stages – starting with an exploration of the topic, followed by reaching an understanding on how a chosen group of experts views specific issues within the topic, leading to a loop of evaluative feedbacks of the group on their mentioned opinions and their estimations, till a common group decision emerges. In such classical Delphi settings, face to face meetings of the group are avoided. The data generation and evaluation is usually based on anonymous questionnaires. As to our intention of creating a forum where different stakeholders can discuss their views and develop common opinions, we have adapted the classical Delphi model for our purpose. It is divided into four stages and each is linked with a specific research question and methodological technique of data generation and interpretation. Prior to a description of the methodological design, the participants invited are to be characterised. Steps towards a balanced selection of participants were set with the help of a stakeholder-analysis. We chose two groups of experts: Group 1 consists of chief executives officers of ECO-WISEs in Styria (23 persons). Group 2 represents a Think Tank which consists of decision makers in and outside of ECO-WISEs, such as representatives of the Labour Market Service, the local government from all three 158



policy areas (social, economic and environmental politics), the commercial market sector, ECO-WISEs (4 CEOs of the CEO-Group), interest groups like chambers and long-term job seekers, political program coordinators like regional-management services, and territorial-employment pacts, etc. (in sum 30 persons). The loop of data generation and interpretation started with an identification of current and future issues ECO-WISEs are and will be confronted with in the next 10 to 15 years. The goal was to gain estimations from the inside. Therefore an anonymous questionnaire with open questions was sent to the CEO-Group. The content was analytically evaluated alongside social, economic and ecological issues and summarized as current and future scenarios by a research team with a further communicative validation through the CEOs being part of the Think Tank Group. The identified scenarios formed the basis for the following group-discussion with the Think-Tank Group. The goal was to clarify the understanding of ECO-WISEs out of several perspectives and to generate opinions on how the role of these organizations as sustainable actors can be improved. The data were evaluated through the research team with a reconstructive, discourse-analytical and comparative method in order to develop a typology on possible strategies alongside the different perspectives the representatives have provided. The next step is to achieve a feedback from the Think-Tank Group on how they perceive and estimate the developed strategytypology in terms of a co-data-analysis. For this, a second group discussion will be arranged aiming to evaluate or modify the possible strategies. Further measures should be identified which will support their achievement. The last step includes a final feedback through the CEO-Group and the Think-Tank Group. With the help of an anonymous questionnaire they should select the most important strategies and measures alongside the criteria importance, chances of realization, and degree of innovation, etc. After summarizing the results in terms of common decisions, final recommendations are prepared for experts and actors by the research team, which will be presented to a broader stakeholder group in order to enhance further realizations. Similar to an initiation ceremony, this presentation should mark the starting point of an upcoming action phase or new planning cycle – depending on the results. Reflection and Introspection The example reflects how an opinion-forming public sphere can be created through participatory research, how open communication can be initiated by adopting the Delphi technique and simply how “reality is made” in a democratic way, as Rauch pointed out (1979, p. 163). In this multi-level process decisions are jointly prepared, evaluated and modified by several internal and external stakeholders of ECOWISEs in order to strengthen their strategic position and their abilities as actors of sustainable development. A lesson we have learned during the on-going adventurous journey should be highlighted. The questions regarding research goals, who is going to be involved, 159



the degree of involvement, and how the data material is generated and analysed as well as how to deal with this often highly sensitive data are essential and critical aspects. The answers should ideally result from a dialogue between researchers and participants which marks the starting point and lasts throughout the whole process. As previously mentioned, the research project was initiated by practitioners, which gives it a specific touch. From the very beginning, internal stakeholders are involved and they are highly interested in participating and bringing to bear their know-how, time and other resources, which in turn leads to fruitful exchanges especially when defining the goal in which direction and mode the future development should go. The following discussion on the prepared methodological design showed that it was too ambitious in the beginning. Regarding the time resources of the stakeholders, it will not be possible to involve them in the data analysis to the intended degree. The consulting team of professionals expected that the process would be more effective if the data analysis were done mainly by researchers with further evaluation and validation phases. Another crucial point was the first group discussion, where the CEOs already involved met the invited external stakeholders. As expected, a main section was to clarify the roles and expectations concerning the data analysis, validation and outcome and mode of publication. This was essential for the forthcoming steps, and it led to a re-design of the methodological setting. For example, the second group discussion was reframed for validation purposes instead of benchmarking the developed strategies. The benchmarking should happen in an anonymous way afterwards. These experiences show that the methodological frames of participatory research are highly fragile and likely to be changed during the process. Transparency and awareness corresponding to the openness of the process and results are important rules of the game. From the researchers´ point of view the preliminary conclusion is: although it is a process without a railing, it provides fascinating insights and encouraging prospects. CONCLUSION

The examination of these examples shows the high variety of participatory research in fields of social work. Different forms, levels and intentions of participation can be found in the research designs. Despite this diversity all projects represent a democratic and emancipatory understanding of research which is based on selfrepresentation and self-reflection in order to improve society. The manifold ways indicate that participatory research is a growing trend in this particular field, which goes hand in hand with the implementation of the “credo of a common producercooperation” in practical social work. Insofar this article can be understood as a preliminary collection of participatory research practice in social work, that should trigger discourse that further reveal the experience and potential of this particular research-style in this action field. 160



NOTES 1

2

3

According to the definition of the World Commission (1987) sustainable development should focus upon the improvement of social participation, economic equality and ecological awareness to the same extend. Hereby 15 expert-interviews were made with persons from the inside and outside of the research field prior to a quantitative survey where 150 identified organizations and projects were questioned on their structural conditions whereof 60 answered. The questionnaire was developed in cooperation with the consulting team of professionals. The outcome of an Austrian wide setting would have been too generic due to different regional conditions. The focus in this project is set on the region Styria, because we can find here a high degree of innovative co-operations between different stakeholders, which seems to be essential for a common decision making.

REFERENCES Anastasiadis, M. (2012). Delphi-Methode - Zukunft in Feldern der Sozialen Arbeit erforschen und partizipativ gestalten. In A. Heimgartner, U. Loch, & St. Sting (Eds.), Empirische Forschung in der Sozialen Arbeit. Methoden und methodologische Herausforderungen (pp. 167–182). Wien, Berlin: Lit Verlag. Anastasiadis, M., & Mayr, A. (2010). ECO-WISE. Ecological Work Integration Social Enterprises. Graz: Forschungsbericht. Retrieved May 06, 2014 from http://www.maria-anastasiadis.com/images/ Forschungpdsfs/Forschungsbericht_ECOWISE_Austria.pdf Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Retrieved from http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/ sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html [07.07.2011]. (Originally published as Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP, 35(4), 216–224.) Berghold, J., & Thomas, St. (2010). Partizipative Forschung. In G. Mey (Ed.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (pp. 333–344). First Ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Boal, A. (1996). Games for Actors and Non-Actors. London, New York, NY: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sozialer Sinn. Kritik der theoretischen Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Wie die Kultur zum Bauern kommt. Über Bildung, Schule und Politik. Hamburg: VSA. Freire, P. (1982). Pädagogik der Unterdrückten. Erziehung als Praxis der Freiheit. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Gipser, D. (1996). Grenzüberschreitungen. Theater der Unterdrückten an Hochschulen in Nah-Ost und West – Emanzipatorische Forschungsprozesse. Zeitschrift für befreiende Pädagogik, 10/June 1996, 26–31. Grunwald, K., & Thiersch, H. (2004). Das Konzept Lebensweltorientierte Soziale Arbeit – einleitende Bemerkungen. In K. Grunwald, & H. Thiersch (Eds.), Praxis Lebensweltorientierter Sozialer Arbeit (pp. 13–39). Weinheim: Juventa. Guggisberg, D. (2004). Partizipation in der Gemeinwesenarbeit. SozialAktuell, 3, 13–16. Habermas, J. (1998). Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Häder, M. (2002). Delphi-Befragungen. Ein Arbeitsbuch. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Hale, J. N. (2007). On the Origins of Participatory Action Research. Action Research Journal, June 2007. Retrieved January 20, 2012 from http://www.montana.edu/arexpeditions/articlereviewer. php?AID=101 Heimgartner, A. (2001). Beachtetes Streetwork - eine empirische Analyse von Streetwork Bezirk Bruck/ Mur, ein Projekt des Vereines ISOP. Research report. Universität Graz. Heimgartner, A. (2009). Komponenten einer prospektiven Entwicklung der Sozialen Arbeit. Wien: LIT Verlag. Heimgartner, A., & Pilch Ortega Hernández, A. (2005). Die Methode der Forschungswerkstätte am Beispiel eines partizipativen und interkulturellen Handlungssettings. In H. Stigler, & H. Reicher (Eds.), Praxisbuch Empirische Sozialforschung (pp. 184–195). Wien: Studien Verlag.

161


M. ANASTASIADIS, A. HEIMGARTNER, H. KITTL-SATRAN & M. WRENTSCHUR Kemmis, St., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory Action Research. Communicative Action in public sphere. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 559–603). London: Sage Publication. Kittl-Satran, H. (2011). Erfahrungen, Wahrnehmung und Umgang mit Gewalt aus der Perspektive von Jugendlichen. Forschungsbericht Universität Graz. Koch, G. (1988). Lernen mit Bert Brecht. Bertolt Brechts politisch-kulturelle Pädagogik. Frankfurt am Main: Brandes & Apsel. Lederer, M. (2005). Gemeinsam oder einsam? Von der Funktion und Wirkung von Sozialkapital bei unterschiedlichen Theoretikern. Bregenz: Büro für Zukunftsfragen. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi Method. Techniques and Applications. London: Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Company. Quality4Children (2002). Standards für die Betreuung von fremd untergebrachten Kindern und jungen Erwachsenen in Europa. Innsbruck: SOS-Kinderdorf International. Rauch, W. (1979). The Decision Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 15(2), 159–169. Sing, E., & Heimgartner, A. (2009). Gemeinwesenarbeit in Österreich. Graz: Leykam. Vogel, M., & Truninger, J. (2012). Subjektivität im Forschungsprozess – eine methodologische Herausforderung. In A. Heimgartner, U. Loch, & St. Sting (Eds.), Empirische Forschung in der Sozialen Arbeit (pp. 65–77). Wien: Lit Verlag. Walther, A. (2010). Partizipation oder Nicht-Partizipation? Sozialpädagogische Vergewisserung eines scheinbar eindeutigen Konzepts zwischen Demokratie, sozialer Integration und Bildung. Neue Praxis, 2, 115–136. Winter, R. (2009). Ein Plädoyer für kritische Perspektiven in der qualitativen Forschung. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum Social Research, 12(1), Art 7. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1583/3083 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wrentschur, M. (2003). Forumtheater. In G. Koch, & M. Streisand (Eds.), Wörterbuch der Theaterpädagogik (pp. 108–110). Berlin, Milow: Schibri. Wrentschur, M. (2008). Forum Theatre as a Participatory Tool for Social Research and Development: A Reflection on Nobody is perfect: A Project with Homeless People. In P. Cox, Th. Geisen, & R. Green (Eds.), Qualitative Research and Social Change in European Contexts (pp. 94–111). New York, NY: palgrave Macmillan. Wrentschur, M. (2010). Neuer Armut entgegenwirken: Politisch-partizipative Theaterarbeit als kreativer Impuls für soziale und politische Partizipationsprozesse. In A. Pilch-Ortega, A. Felbinger, R. Mikula, & R. Egger (Eds.), Macht – Eigensinn – Engagement. Lernprozesse gesellschaftlicher Teilhabe (pp. 211–232). Münster: VSA-Verlag. Wrentschur, M. (2009). Soziale Partizipation durch Soziale Kulturarbeit: Bewältigungs- und Empowermentprozesse an Schnittstellen von Sozialer Arbeit und kulturell-ästhetischer Praxis. In J. Scheipl, P. Rossmann, & A. Heimgartner (Eds.), Partizipation und Inklusion in der Sozialen Arbeit (pp. 168–187). Graz: Leykam Universitätsverlag. Wright, M. T., Block, M., & Unger, H. V. (2007). Stufen der Partizipation in der Gesundheitsförderung: Ein Modell zur Beurteilung von Beteiligung. Infodienst für Gesundheitsförderung, Heft 3, 4–5.

162


ANN-MARGRETH E. OLSSON

DIALOGICAL PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH IN SOCIAL WORK USING DELTA-REFLECTING TEAMS

ACTION RESEARCH AS JOINT ACTION

Action research cannot work from a position where the main flow of impulses moves from general theory to local action (Gustavsen, 2008). In action research we must move away from theory-based approaches to ones more rooted in people’s practice (Shotter, 2005a). Action research (AR) is a form of practitioner research dealing with tasks and changing processes in the world – in everyday practice (Denscombe, 2009) – in the everyday conduct of our lives (Reason & Bradbury, 2006). It requires actions as an integral part of the research process itself and necessarily insider research, in the sense of practitioners researching their own professional actions (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 1996). This study stressed the importance of research in use becoming supportive and strengthening empowering and mobilizing movements in the rest of the practice from within the actions. Hence it became a study encompassing dialogical communication and interplay, here viewed as spontaneous responsiveness and living interactions in chiasmatic relations (cf. Shotter, 2011), that could grow social workers skills, enhance listening to the children’s and other clients’ invitations, invite to participation in social investigations in the processes and in the written reports all the while creating points at which choices and new solutions appear in coaching and researching (Olsson, 2010). The interest here will be focused on the latter – on the practice of the research with use of narratives co-created from within the conducted coaching and in meetings with the participating social workers deltareflecting in small groups/teams, all this emerging from interplay and components of practice of social work. Initially in the coaching the model of ‘reflecting teams’ as described in Andersen (1987) was used. This model restricts what may be the subject of reflection to what has been heard and seen. The model was opened up to allow for increased concurrent processing by the coach suggesting co-creating new narratives be allowed to participate (delta in Swedish) in the process, be heard and reflected on. The idea being that new channels could allow for increased polyphony and for novelty, cf. creating a river delta. From this emerged one of the living tools within the structure of Dialogical PAR (DPAR): delta-reflecting teams. This evolved in mutual processes of joint actions (cf. Shotter, 1980), creating expanding and diffusing



A. E. OLSSON

effects as well as intensifying the progress and the processes. These processes were talked about as a dialogical travel, a tour of interactions likened to the interplay in a peloton in a cycling tour – a polyphony of actions and voices and other things in joint actions of dialogue. My task in this study, as a new systemic coach and conductor of the research, was to support and encourage the social workers’ efforts, ideas and experimental work in increasing children’s and other clients’ participation in the investigating processes and in writing the investigational document, introducing systemic ideas. The use of language is crucial to the ideas of systemic practice. Important living ideas are that we are constructing our world and identities in relation to others and otherness (Berger & Luckmann, 1991, 2007; Gergen, 2001; Gergen & Gergen, 2003). Other living ideas are that words are given their meanings in use and are contextually associated (Shotter, 2005b; Wittgenstein, 2001; Bakhtin, 1986). Thus, I am approaching the language as if it has no “one and only” purport of the words. The meaning is co-created in the unique use of the language in the communication of the participants. That is also the way I have approached the meaning of practice and research, of dialogue, coaching, AR and PAR, etc. Thus there is a focus on the meaning co-created from within this study and not on lexical distinctions between different definitions of research, of AR and PAR. THE STUDY

In all, 55 social workers in seven municipalities in the south of Sweden, participated in the research and the coaching. I was the researching coach/coaching researcher introducing a path to language systemic and dialogical practice with the aim to, together with the participants and from within the social work practice, improve the interaction in social investigations, inviting the children and other clients into dialogical collaboration. The study was conducted for almost six years in Sweden within the framework of a Professional Doctorate in Systemic Practice at the University of Bedfordshire, UK. The County Administrative Board of Scania, Sweden commissioned the coaching (Olsson, 2010). The County Board is the local supervisory authority of the Government (State). At the time of the study it was supervising the social welfare services, including what and how the actions in relation to the coaching were conducted as well as my actions in the coaching (including the written documents). As a study conducted from within social work and systemic practice the focus was into, using our curiosity, inquiring and exploring what works and how, reflecting in and on (Schön, 2002) and learning by doing (Dewey, 2007) in new efforts, in alternatives, exploring, dreaming, designing and delivering, again and again, with new reflections and actions in an ongoing circular process of remembering and flow giving new orientations in how to go on. These ideas emanate both from ideas of action research and systemic practice as well as from the area of leadership and organisation, Appreciative Inquiry (AI) (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2003, 2005; Cooperrider, Whitney & Stavros, 2005). 164


DIALOGICAL PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH

Coaching sessions and interviews were, with some exceptions, taped or videorecorded. There were the occasional technical problems and one participant that initially did not consent to recording. The participant later had a change of mind and pursuant interactions where recorded. Consent was always asked for before taping was initiated. I also encouraged the participating social workers to make their own written contributions. Twelve participants submitted written contributions. Nineteen social workers participated as co-researchers during the whole length of the study. As such I think of them as key participants in the research process. They prepared, managed and conducted activities in delta-reflecting in meetings, they read my drafts, providing their views and added new contributions and expertise, guiding me on how to go on and focus in further research. This resulted in the enduring research questions: – What emerging differences can use of systemic and dialogical interplay in coaching of social workers co-create in social work practice for children and other clients? – How can coaching from within dialogical interplay facilitate learning for the participants and the development of emerging ideas? – How can participants in systemic dialogical coaching be helped in conducting social work and changing processes? THE COACHING

In the coaching, the participants have reflected on the approach, methods and techniques, cf. AMT (Burnham, 1992), they used and their reflexive relations, but also in relation to the client and, introducing a novelty, in relation to themselves. On the whole, the social workers’ own participation in relation to the clients, had seldom been in focus earlier nor had there been any expectations on the social workers to account for the interplay with the clients of what had emerged in the social worker – client relationship or the family – child – social worker relationship or to others in the child’s network. In the investigations (including the texts) it was not customary to give any account either for the relations between the social worker and the client nor what had unfolded in their interplay (or how). In the coaching I asked the participant some questions supporting the social worker to co-create narratives from within her/his practice. Together we reflected on what we had heard and about the actions in the practice of the participants, about the story told or untold and finally, about our own actions within the coaching. We learnt and developed our skills of making inquiries, using our curiosity and co-creating questions from within listening, which in this study became known among us as listening with listening ears using listening questions. We also progressed in co-creating narratives as well as the practice of social work and of coaching. Some concepts emerged as helpful in the process of narrating our learning. I could relate to concepts of ‘reflection-inaction’ and ‘reflection-on-action’ (Schön, 1987, 2002), and this seemed to resonate 165


A. E. OLSSON

in the participants as well. It appears to me that Schön, as well as Paulo Freire, attach great importance to the connection between action and reflection for learning and development (Freire, 1972). We were all learning by doing (Dewey, 2007) and inquiring (Dewey, 1938) and by reflections in and on our actions (Schön, 2002), testing and exploring (Dewey, 1991), developing and improving both the social work and the coaching as well as the research actions and processes. One of the core ideas in action research appears to be the creation of a continuous and participative learning process (Greenwood & Levin, 1998). In the coaching, and in relation to coaching, the participating social workers, managers and I experienced for example that it ‘made a difference that made a difference’ (cf. Bateson, 2000) for children in investigations when the social workers kept in touch directly with the child and created a relationship of their own with the child in question. As an example, it appeared helpful to keep in mind, when telephoning or e-mailing, not only to ask the parents to inform the child but to ask for and to maintain direct contact with the child. THE ACTION RESEARCH AND THE SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

In the commission of the County Board I was supposed to write consultative documents regularly (in Swedish), accounting for and exploring the processes and the results pertaining to the coaching and the actions of the social workers. This strengthened my ambition and supported me to work continuously with the participating social workers in developing ways to make collaborative reflections on (analyses) and accounts of what was emerging in the projects and in the research – and how. The first book was published in 2005, another in 2006, two in 2007 and two in 2008, by the County (Olsson, 2005, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b). They all provided a basis for the dissertation (Olsson, 2010). In the dissertation I moved on to explore narratives from different phases and eras in the conducted action research about the progress and the impacts of the coaching and the researching on the social work practice in conducting social investigations involving children and other clients; oral or written narratives by the participants, interviews of clients and written social investigations. In my reflections and conclusions I emphasised how focus had moved in the social investigational work from collecting data for decision-making about what would be best for the child and the clients, to focusing on supporting the changing process from within in relation to the participating clients, involving the children, making different voices heard co-creating new orientation on how to go on (cf. Shotter, 2006). The participating social secretaries, secretaries of fostercare homes and other social workers, through and in the context of action research and the coaching, spoke more and more about dialogical and more democratic meetings with clients where more voices of children and other participating clients were heard. All this became the foundation for important and far-reaching developmental social work in child welfare and protection and in addiction treatment. 166



RESEARCH OF JOINT ACTIONS AS RIDING IN THE PELOTON OF A CYCLING TOUR

The conducted action research was characterised of being participatory involving the participants including the researcher in dialogical interplay. Dialogical interplay is about moving in a mutual living and expressive responsiveness, responding to and addressing one another, other and otherness in these joint actions (Shotter, 1980, 2003). Emerging into these mutual processes of joint actions, creating expanding and diffusing effects as well as intensifying the progress and the processes of the actions, the research took place on the nature of involving dialogical interplay. The dialogical flows of the joint actions are processes difficult to give account for. The outcome of any exchange cannot be traced back to the intentions of any of the individuals involved (Shotter, 2004). The joint actions are impossible to divide and recognise from each other (Shotter, 1987). The dialogical reality constructed between them seems to “just happen” without an author, like if “a third agency is at work in all dialogical realities” (Shotter, 2004, p. 3). Metaphorically it could be seen as if we were in a ‘mishmash’ of relationships, of communication and interactions interweaved and entangled from within (with and in) our interplay. With the systemic view (epistemology) of circular reflexive connections (Lang, 1997) in use, to wind up and trace how the emerging ideas and the lived practice in the study expanded, would be to try to live backwards (cf. Bateson, 1987). The participating social workers and I became travellers on a tour of joint actions in a practice of research, coaching and social work. As a way of unfolding the researching movements and emerging impacts in the social work practice, the metaphor of going on a voyage tour, a cycling tour and riding in the peloton, became helpful. It was a tour where we had some ideas about the end-in-view beforehand (cf. Dewey, 2007) and had sketched out some possible routes but mainly trusted that new orientations on how to go on would emerge in the dialogical interplay between the participants as the tour goes on. In this dynamic flow of collaborations going on in the cycling tour of voyages, riding in a peloton, we found the directions on how to go on (with whom, when, where, how, with what and why). For example in the tour/study, we found out that it made a difference when the social workers turned directly to the child in person. This direct approach seemed to strengthen the child as an agent of her/his own both in the perspective of the child and his/her parents but also in the view of the participating social workers (Olsson, 2005). It made an impact on all the relationships. These experiences brought me to one of several “halts” in the research tour. An idea emerged, that opening up for me as a coach/researcher to have dialogues and listen directly to some of the children in the investigations would expand the delta/reflective space. Hence the social workers introduced me to twelve of the children that they hade made contact with in their work. This was done after obtaining consent from the children themselves consent and from their parents. At the meeting I made sure that a consent remained before 167


A. E. OLSSON

initiating the interview about their experiences of dialogues with social workers and about participating in investigations. Another stage in this tour was when the social worker’s asked me to explore a number of their written investigations, 118 of them, with the purpose to track if and how the social workers had made the voices of the children heard (Olsson, 2008b). In this tour of voyages I saw how the participating social workers and I travelled, guided by our re-/narrating of examples from within the social workers’ practice, using verbal and written systemic signposts and directions – for example, the ideas of curiosity (Cecchin, 1987), reflexivity (Pearce, 1994), co-construction and cocreation (Lang, 1991), dialogues as mutual spontaneously living communication in responsiveness (Shotter, 2002). We were riding in an ocean of systemic ideas and methods; for example circular questioning (Penn, 1982, Tomm, 2000), reflecting team (Andersen, 2003), systemic stories and narratives (Lang & McAdam, 1994), different perspectives (Shotter, 1984) and different voices heard (McAdam, 1995; Smith & Nylund, 1997). We were stopping at some of the possible halts of ideas, getting a sense of how much more there was to explore and highlight, catching a glimpse of how many other different directions there were to choose, but also finding inspiration and fresh support on how to go on. Using ideas from AI we dreamt about new orientation how to go on, designed some ideas about how to continue, tested – learning by doing – exploring and giving feed back what came out of the testing (the ongoing circular process Dream – Design – Delivery – Discovery is in AI called the 4D-model (Cooperrider and Whitney, 2003, 2005; Cooperrider, Whitney & Stavros, 2005)). The systemic methods in use were reflexively influenced and adapted in the interplay, becoming living tools in both the social workers’ practice and the coaching researcher’s, my practice – living in the sense that they become used and appear in different ways and forms in relation to the use and the users. One of the living tools was ‘reflecting teams’, emerging into delta-reflecting teams in these action research processes, which are introduced below. DELTA-REFLECTING AND REFLECTING TEAMS

Language systemic ideas and reflecting teams as described by Andersen (1987, 1992, 2003) was a departure point for this study/tour and conversations with Tom Andersen himself contributed to a sense of Grand Depart. The team(s) and myself as a team owner developed new ways of becoming from these ideas and forms, both in actions as coach and as researcher which I here give some glimpses from (see also the chapter about ‘The coaching’). The rules for the reflecting team according to Andersen, was that there should be no reference to things not pertaining to the conversation seen or heard (Penn, 1985; O´Brian & Bruggen, 1985). However, in introducing instability and opening the structure of reflecting teams, the teamwork and the interaction in the reflecting teams grew and overflowed creating new paths of narrating not seen or heard earlier in the conversation. In the context of collecting narratives/data in the research I was eager to hear more, new and different voices, 168



so I introduced to the participants in the reflecting teams to connect to their own experiences and also bring forth narratives of their own into the team reflecting both in what they had heard in the session and in their own narrating. This supported the co-creating and narrating in the study about what and how the coaching and the systemic ideas were brought and used further. In Swedish, the word “delta” is used both in the meaning of “participate” or “share” as well as the dividing of the mouth of a river into several river channels. This expanded form of reflecting team I came to call delta-reflecting teams. These contributions were very important from the perspective of our practice development and, as it emerged, for my research methodology. I encouraged reflection on what participant social workers had heard, moves to expand the reflections with new narrating, and contribute with experiences of their own and whatever they wanted to bring into the dialogue in connection to the subject(s). I was also moved from one place to another and allowed to participate in the development of something that allowed for new nuances in social work. The systemic approach of curiosity, positioning yourself as if you were not-knowing (Anderson, 1990), inquiring with readiness for listening and exploring the logic in use, as one of the social workers in the study called it, the listening questions and listening with acceptance and attention, seemed to create space and freedom to speak and narrate, to be heard and listened to, in nuances and different intonation. This style I also brought into and expanded in the coaching and in supervision as a way of eliciting polyphony in the organisations. IN THE CONTEXT OF DIALOGICAL PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH (DPAR)

The emerging style of mutual involving interplay and collaboration, was characterised both of being participatory as in Participatory Action Research (PAR) (cf. Whyte, Greenwood & Lazes, 1991) and dialogical and named: Dialogical Participatory Action Research DPAR. The inquiries from within the research and coaching, using ideas and concepts of systemic, narrative and AI seemed to have propagated and expanded as by themselves as an influencing undergrowth in the organisations where the participators worked and acted. The ‘ripples on water’ effect seemed to work (cf. Gustavsen, 2008). The participating social workers noticed, as did I, how the communication and the language in use changed in their organisations when they gradually changed their approach in interacting with colleagues and clients as well as in their use of methods and techniques in their everyday (working) lives. New words came into fashion, indicating an increase in their focus on and increasing interest in the impact of context, network, language, meaning making, perspective movement, narrating, reflexivity and circularity, indicating the emerging focus on and interest in systemic ideas and ontology. Being aware of how different views and perspectives influence the variation of meanings in use in communication, earlier ideas and beliefs in one true version, the truth, faded away. The imagination of diversity and complexity faded into a more polyphonic and multidimensional social world of ideas. The participating social workers did not report these changes 169


A. E. OLSSON

as making their work easier, but more interesting and joyful. As one social worker expressed it: – To really take part, become active, take care of all the time, and, we used the word, enjoy every moment … (Olsson, 2010, p. 121) In relation to the clients and especially the children, they all became more involved and open to collaborative work bringing a different world into existence. REFERENCES Andersen, T. (1987). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical work. Family process, 26, 415–428. Andersen, T. (1992). Relationship, language and pre-understanding in the reflecting processes. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 13(2), 87–91. Andersen, T. (2003). Reflekterande processer. Samtal och samtal om samtalen. Stockholm: Mareld. Anderson, H. (1990). Then and now: A journey from “knowing” to “not knowing”. Contemporary Family Therapy, 12(3), 193–197. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bateson, G. (1987). Ande och Natur. En nödvändig enhet (C. G. Liungman, Trans.). Stockholm/Lund: Symposion Bokförlag & Tryckeri. Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2007). Kunskapssociologi. Hur individen uppfattar och formar sin sociala verklighet (S. Olsson, Trans.). Stockholm: Wahlströms & Widstrand. Burnham, J. (1992). Approach, method, technique: Making distinctions and creating connections. Human Systems: The Journal of Systemic Consultation & Management, 3, 3–26. Cecchin, G. (1987). Hypothesizing, circularity, and neutrality revisited: An invitation to curiosity. Family process, 26(4), 405–413. Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2003). Appreciative inquiry. In M. Gergen & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Social construction: A reader (pp. 173–181). London: SAGE. Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San Francisco, CA: Berett-Koehler Publishers. Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2005). Appreciative inquiry handbook. The first in a series of AI workbooks for leaders of change. San Francisco, CA: Crown Custom Publishing, BerettKoehler Publishers. Denscombe, M. (2009). Forskningshandboken – för småskaliga forskningsprojekt inom samhällsvetenskaperna (P. Larson, Trans.). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company. Dewey, J. (1991). How we think. New York, NY: Prometheus Books. Dewey, J. (2007). Democracy and education. Teddington, Middlesex: Echo Library. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). London: Penguin Books. Gergen, K. J. (2001). Social construction in context. London: SAGE Publications. Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. (Eds.). (2003). Social construction: A reader. London: SAGE Publications. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. London: SAGE Publications. Gustavsen, B. (2008). Action research, practical challenges and the formation of theory. Action Research, 6, 421–437. Lang, P. (1991). Organisations: Conundrums, chaos and communication. In M. Marshall, M. Preston-Shoot, & E. Wincott (Eds.), Effective management. Birmingham: British Association of Social Workers.

170


DIALOGICAL PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH Lang, P. (1997). Patterns, connections and change. London: Kensington Consultation Centre. Lang, P., & McAdam, E. (1994). Stories, giving account and systemic descriptions: Perspectives and positions in conversations. Feeding and fanning the winds of creative imagination. Human Systems, 6(2). McAdam, E. (1995). Hearing the voices of the child: Tuning into the voices of influence: The social construction of therapy with children. Human Systems, 6. McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project. London: Routledge. O’Brian, C., & Bruggen, P. (1985). Our personal and professional lives: Learning positive connotation and circular questioning. Family Process, 24(31), 311–321. Olsson, A. M. (2005). Barnets socialsekreterare. Coaching i dialogiska utredningar (Vol. 4). Malmö: Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län. Olsson, A. M. (2006). Coach i socialt arbete och dialogcoaching. Om reflektion och dialog som gör skillnad (Vol. 1). Malmö: Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län. Olsson, A. M. (2007a). Barns berättelser om socialtjänstens utredningar. Samtal mellan socialsekreterare och barn (Vol. 1). Malmö: Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län. Olsson, A. M. (2007b). Klienternas socialsekreterare inom missbrukarvården (Vol. 9). Malmö: Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län. Olsson, A. M. (2008a). Annorlunda kommunikation på socialkontoret. Om förändring och utveckling i språk-systemisk praktik (Vol. 2). Malmö: Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län. Olsson, A. M. (2008b). Hörs barnet? Studie om hur socialsekreterare gör barns röst hörda i utredningarna (Vol. 3). Malmö: Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län. Olsson, A. M. E. (2010). Listening to the Voice of Children. Systemic Dialogue Coaching: Inviting Participation and Partnership in Social Work (Professional Doctorate in Systemic Practice PhD). University of Bedfordshire, Luton. Pearce, W. B. (1994). Interpersonal communication: Making social worlds. New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers. Penn, P. (1982). Circular Questioning. Family process, 21, 263–280. Penn, P. (1985). Feed forward: Future questions, future maps. Family Process, 24, 299–311. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2006). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 1–14). London: SAGE Publications. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practioner. toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schön, D. A. (2002). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Ashgate Arena. Shotter, J. (1980). Men the magicians: The duality of social being and the structure of moral worlds. In A. J. Chapman & D. M. Jones (Eds.), Models of man (pp. 25–28). Leicester: British Psychological Society. Shotter, J. (1984). Social accountability and selfhood. Oxford: Blackwell. Shotter, J. (1987). The social construction of an “us”: Problems of accountability and narratology. In R. Burnett, P. McGhee, & D. Clarke (Eds.), Accounting for personal relationships: Social representations of interpersonal links (pp. 225–247). London: Methuen. Shotter, J. (2002). Spontaneous responsiveness, chiasmic relations, and consciousness inside the realm of living expression. Retrieved July 04, 2014 from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jds/Consciousness.htm Shotter, J. (2003, October). Inside the moment of speaking: In our meetings with others, we cannot simply be ourselves. Paper presented at the Psychologies and Identities Conference, University of Bergamo, Italy. Shotter, J. (2004, December). The embodied practitioner: Toward dialogic-descriptive accounts of social practices. Paper presented at The Role of the Social Sciences Today. Cardiff university, Wales. Retrieved July 04, 2014 from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jds/Cardiff.htm Shotter, J. (2005a). Inside organizations: Action research, management and ‘withness’-thinking. London: KCC Foundation. Shotter, J. (2005b). The short book of ‘Withness’-thinking. London: KCCF.

171


A. E. OLSSON Shotter, J. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organization Studies, 27(4), 585–604. doi: 10.1177/0170840606062105. Shotter, J. (2011). Spontaneous responsiveness, chiasmic relations, and consciousness: Inside the realm of living expression. Retrieved July 04, 2014 from http://www.johnshotter.com/2011/08/19/draftpaper-on-consciousness/ Smith, C., & Nylund, D. (Eds.). (1997). Narrative therapies with children and adolescents. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Tomm, K. (2000). Systemisk intervjumetodik. En utveckling av det terapeutiska samtalet. Stockholm: Mareld. Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1991). Participatory action research. through practice to science in social research. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participatory action research. London: SAGE Publications. Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

172


IVANA JEĐUD BORIĆ & ANJA MIROSAVLJEVIĆ

PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL PEDAGOGY IN CROATIA Current State and Challenges

(RE)DISCOVERING PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PEDAGOGY IN CROATIA

Having in mind the great and complex area of participatory approach, its possibilities, dilemmas and challenges, this paper addresses only a small part of this “universe”- it is focused on the field of social pedagogy in Croatia. Our premise is that one can write from and about one’s reality in order to participate in greater understanding. This is a significant limitation but when it comes to broadening the knowledge one must be looking at both, the great picture as well as its small parts. Therefore, this paper offers reflections which will hopefully help in rethinking new directions in research as well as in practice of social pedagogy. The awareness and importance of participation of social intervention system’s beneficiaries in the process of intervention delivery have risen during the last decade among the academics and in less extent among the professionals in Croatia. Demand for greater involvement of beneficiaries (children and young people with behaviour problems) first came from academics and then slowly became a recognizable notion in professional and public (policy) actions and documents. So, at this point, one can find participation as an important part of the Social Welfare Act (Official Gazette, 32/12) and of the measures in policy documents related to the children and youths with behaviour disorders (National Strategy of Prevention of Behaviour Disorders of Children and Youth 2009-2012, Official Gazette, 98/09). Social pedagogues (researchers and practitioners) are becoming more interested in beneficiaries’ perspective and self-presentation which enables greater integration of science and practice, particularly in the sense of knowing and understanding beneficiaries’ perspective and implementing such acquired knowledge into everyday practice. This kind of “science in action” based on the principles of participation, empowerment and the creation of joint solutions actually represents a change in the position and relationship between professionals and beneficiaries and also demands new methods and approaches that enable mutual understanding and (co) creation. A paradigm shift, or in other words, interest for the users’ perspective, and actualization of participatory rights, led to a change in methodological approach. F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 173–192. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


I. J. BORIĆ & A. MIROSAVLJEVIĆ

New topics dealing with experiences of children and young people and their life stories require a different, qualitative methodology, focused primarily on the words and relationship between participants and researchers. Therefore, awareness of the need for active participation of beneficiaries, the need for different kind of participation of professionals and scientists, appeared first in the area of research and science. After it became clear that we want to (and need to) work collaboratively with children and youth, soon we’ve recognized the need for a different kind of research methodology – the one that would enable researchers and practitioners to share power and exchange views with participants. From our perspective as researchers the main goals in the process of participation (both in research and in practical work) can be best described through following “actions” (which all must be mutual and collaborative, but encouraged by the ones who hold bigger power and knowledge): – Respect is the precondition of participation which is primary related to trust between people in the process, so that participation isn’t only a “nice, but declarative” notion which happens to be “fashionable” and therefore must be applied without understanding. We agree with Cornwall and Jewkes (1995) that in many cases participation is becoming a catch-all concept and a cliché. One should ask oneself: Do I really want to hear, listen and understand what other people are saying, what they are feeling and what is their perspective? Do I trust that other perspective? These are very important questions especially when working with marginalized and oppressed groups (such as children and youth with behavioural problems). We advocate for a meaningful participation of all, which can contribute to competencies development and empowerment. – Share: The first thing that comes in mind when thinking of sharing is power. Bellefeuille and Ricks (2010) state “letting go of one’s power as the researcher and sharing it with others” emphasizing in this case equality between participants and researchers. However, this poses one more interesting question: Does the power really belong to the researcher, and what kind of power are we actually talking about? The question of power is even more important when it comes to research with children who are more fragile and more exposed to potential abuse. Thomas and O’Kane (1998) point out following issues regarding power imbalance: consent for research, confidentiality and protection from abuse. Besides the “power”, or maybe within the concept of power, when it comes to participation, one should share knowledge and skills needed for participation. – Exchange is very much connected to sharing, but the point is more on collaborative work on different perspectives and views, allowing each other to comprehend things in their variety and multiperspectivity (Čović, 2006). – Create: Based on mutual respect, sharing and exchanging, a creation of new “actionable” knowledge is enabled (Čačinovič Vogrinčič & Mešl, 2007). This “new” or maybe better said newly perceived knowledge can contribute to development of new theories and practice. 174


PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL PEDAGOGY IN CROATIA

In order to describe current state and challenges in participatory research in the field of social pedagogy in Croatia, we shall first briefly define the field of social pedagogy in Croatia, as well as the subject of children’s participation in research. Based on that two notions we’ll give a closer look at children’s participation in two socio-pedagogic researches we’ve been a part of. THE CONTEXT – SOCIAL PEDAGOGY IN CROATIA

Social pedagogy is a scientific discipline that studies children and adults with so called “risk behaviours” or “with difficulties in social integration”. It has been developing in the last 50 years within the broader field of educational and rehabilitation sciences on the Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Zagreb. This is the only institution in Croatia which qualifies specialists for research and practical work with children, youth and adults on prevention, detection, risk and needs assessment, early interventions, treatment and aftercare. Therefor social pedagogues work with children/youth/adults at risk or with behavioural problems as well as with their social environment with the main goals of adequate upbringing, socialization, early intervention, rehabilitation and social integration of the above mentioned individuals/groups. Study of Social Pedagogy has two departments as follows – Department for Behavioural Disorders and Department for Criminology. Social pedagogues as experts (and thus as scientists) are immersed in everyday life and living environment of their beneficiaries. The way in which beneficiaries experience their lives and their own situation, is almost inevitably the focus of interest for social pedagogues. Social pedagogy deals with atypical social groups and atypical (specific) individuals who are dealing with specific problems. So when it comes to research, we are dealing with relatively small samples of participants which by number and characteristics correspond well with qualitative methodology and with participatory approach in research. CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH

Children are one of the most “governed groups by both the state and civic society and at the same time some of the highest users of state services—health, education, and social security, and a primary focus of state intervention (Hill et al., 2004). Carter (2009) argues that children are an under-researched group whose opinions and perspectives have traditionally been gained at second-hand. Therefor a special interest should be put on investigating the question of participation of children in all areas: from everyday life in family, school, community, intervention system to participation in research. When it comes to children participation in research (and in general), the logical starting point is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and its widely accepted attitude that children must be able to express their opinions about the activities and contents that affect their welfare and that their opinions must be respected in 175



accordance with the best interest of each child. In other words, this means that participation, as Jeđud (2011) states, allows children and young people to be the “owners” of decisions which affect them directly as well as decisions related to their lives. Ajduković, Rajter and Sušac (2010) suggest that the above mentioned view of the right of children to express their opinion on important issues on the age-appropriate way, without jeopardizing their safety and welfare, is essential when assessing the feasibility and ethical questions of research involving children. In doing so, the researcher should strike a balance between the right of the child to express his/her opinions and experiences about life’s important matters and the adult’s obligations (parent or guardian, and researchers) to act upon child’s best interests and to protect the child from potential adverse effects of participation in the study (Schenk & Williamson, 2005). Stephenson, Gourley and Miles (2004) believe that in cases when adults do not listen to children and their perceptions of certain situations, decisions they make may have more negative outcomes for children. They also stress that the information provided by children should be used along with those given by adults. Generally speaking, participation of children is much more present when it comes to “regular systems” which involve children and young people (such as the education system) then when it comes to children and youth who are in the welfare system or juvenile justice system (especially when it comes to socalled sensitive topics). Cashmore (2002) states that participation in case of children and youth in care has the potential to recognize children as well as protect them, and therefore is even more important. It is well known that children can participate in researches in at least two different ways: as active participants (those who share their experiences and whose perceptions help in creating new knowledge) as well as researchers (those who are the initiators and equal partners during the whole research process (Clark, 2004)). In both cases we are talking about participatory research, but the role and the amount of children’s involvement differs. Still children’s perspective and experiences are often failed to be included in models and understanding different social phenomena. Therefore it is important to encourage their participation in building knowledge and developing new theories and practices. Considering the importance of active participation of children in research, Czymoniewicz-Klippel (2010) believes that the modern scientists accepted the right of children to be full and equal participants in researches and nowadays the researches are more focused on participation of children and different methods and ways of including children in researches. In addition, participation increases the confidence as well as skills and empowers children and young people, while on the other hand, it allows adults to take into account and show respect for the opinions of children and young people. Moreover, it can lead to higher quality services and more effective interventions (Jeđud, 2011). However, when we talk about participatory research with children in the field of social pedagogy in Croatia and put it in time perspective, sadly we conclude that in our country, children’s participation on policy level is declarative, in practice hardly existing and in research very often misunderstood and limited to 176



ethical considerations. Being optimistic and having in mind the time needed for development and implementation of new paradigm and new knowledge, we do believe that the current state is only one of first phases in participation development, from “shallow” to “deeper” participation (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995). The vision to which we aspire is that children and youth, in research and in practice, become “not only the passengers but a crew”. REFLECTIONS ON RESEARCH PARTICIPATION WITH CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN PRACTICE – TWO CROATIAN EXAMPLES

When we look back and think about socio-pedagogic researches in the last decade in the field of child care in Croatia, we can conclude that we’ve had just few participatory researches in Croatia (e.g. Socio-pedagogic Diagnosis, Participation of Children in the Process of Upbringing in Children’s HomesChildren’s Rights). General impressions on participatory approach we’ve used so far are that our experiences are limited (though valuable). More precisely, while researching, we were more orientated on the methods which enable participation (using focus groups, interviews, including participants in process of adjustment of questionnaires) as well as on appreciation of ethical principles (giving information about the study, informed consent for the interview/focus group, returning the transcribed interview to participants, participants giving feedback and comments to the transcript) then on key aspects of real participatory research. In other words, we find examples of involvement of participants in the stage of conducting research in terms of consenting to participation and providing feedback on the collected data (for example, Koller-Trbović & Žižak, 2005; Žižak & Vizek Vidović, 2004; Jeđud, 2011), however, involvement of participants in other stages is still fairly rare, particularly in the research planning stage. Thus we can conclude that we’ve rarely or never included participants in project designs, presentation of results, conclusions and recommendations (to them or to the public) and in results dissemination. Despite that two different participatory researches were conducted by a small team of researchers from the Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation SciencesDepartment for Behavioural Disorders. Those two researches will be presented in the following text. Social-Pedagogical Diagnosis: Beneficiaries’ Participation in the Process of Needs Assessment and Intervention Planning The main goal of the project referred to beneficiaries’ participation (children and youth at risk in the family and/or behaviour) in the process of needs assessment and intervention planning, as well as verification of capabilities and effectiveness of this approach. Project goals were divided into two major groups: the participatory and scientific goals. Participatory goals were oriented toward testing the possibilities 177



and efficiency of the participatory work with the beneficiaries in the process of needs assessment, decision making and planning, monitoring and evaluating the interventions. One of the participatory goals was to examine weather participation increases activity, insight and responsibility of the beneficiaries. Scientific-theoretical goals sought to determine the key topics which children and youth elaborate through self-presentation, as well as to determinate similarities and differences between the beneficiaries’ self-presentation and experts’ views of those topics. With the aim of achieving these two goals, qualitative methodology was selected, as the most appropriate when researching participation of children and young people. The study included a voluntary 40-children and adolescents of both genders, aged 12-20 years. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data. All interviews were recorded and transcribed, and after the qualitative analysis, interviews served as a working material for professionals and users when it came to needs assessment and intervention planning. Based on qualitative analysis of these 40 interviews the matrix code was created, which was the basis for scientific analysis of the project results, but also for direct work with children and young people. The matrix code is structured according to the social-pedagogical areas that were covered through the semi-structured interviews. This research also contributes to certain important insights related to children and youth with behaviour disorders and their perspective. We present some of those: – Family and parents are a very important topic for young people, richly elaborated in their self-presentation. They expressed the need to be in contact with their birth family regardless to the prior negative experience and negative living conditions. Everyday life in their families is often described as unstructured, with few family rituals (such as holidays, celebration, family dinners etc.). However, when talking about their future, children do not express desire to return to their birth families. They are much more oriented to themselves and the idea of their own family with very specific plans regarding relations and communication. – Children and youth with behavioural disorders are aware of their positive and negative characteristics, especially those which are based on their impulsiveness. The overall impression is that they are very satisfied with themselves, especially due to their negative life experiences and problems in the family. They are very proud of positive changes which happen in their life during interventions. – Children talked about school failure which was connected with a negative perception of school, lack of work habits and a learning structure followed by the feeling of being different from peers, which often results in truancy. Peers have a very important role in the lives of these children. Key components/values related to friendship and peers are help, support, sharing and trust. – Life in out-home placement, is mostly seen as a necessity, without any particular expectations, more like a stage of life one needs to “endure”. Current experience of intervention is positive with the belief that such intervention is necessary and useful for their future. 178



It is important to stress that scientific-theoretical goals of the project have been fully achieved, while the participatory goals have been achieved partially. That can be attributed to lack of preparedness and readiness of professionals themselves, the formal organization of the institutions (which often meant a lack of adequate space for conducting the interviews), time-consuming participatory work (preparation for an interview, an interview, a transcript of the interview, direct work on the interview, joint planning of interventions), etc. However, it is important to mention that the children showed interest and willingness to participate in the process of needs assessment and intervention planning and that through the project several models for a practical participatory work were created. In other words, it was shown that participatory approach gives good results for all stakeholders of the process. Children and youth gained and experienced power and sense of importance, but also sense of responsibility. They talked about power to influence their own life and to influence decision-making processes regarding their lives. Better understanding of themselves, better relationships and communication with professionals working with them are some of the benefits for them, too. On the other hand, professionals also talked about facilitation of communication and establishment of better relationships with children they work with, better understanding of children and sharing the responsibility with children and youth. From the text above it is obvious that children accepted this approach. That means that they want to take part in everything concerning their life. During the process of participation, it is necessary to explain the goals, purposes, roles and possibilities to them. That gives and ensures both of them (children and professionals) a framework for cooperation with clear rules, expectations, roles and responsibilities of all partners in the process. During the project, several obstacles were identified when it came to beneficiaries’ participation. Namely, some professionals showed difficulties with accepting this kind of approach. This was especially evident with practitioners working with “difficult” children, un-voluntary clients and in highly structured treatment. Sometimes it was very hard to motivate practitioners even more because researchers didn’t have practical experience in participatory work with children which would serve as a starting point to encourage professionals’ motivation. On contraire, practical experience in participation had to “be built” together with children, practitioners and researchers. Furthermore, some professionals were feared that they would lose their authority if they embraced participation. They didn’t believe in some “other” approach than that they already were familiar with. Professionals said that they needed some additional competencies to initiate and maintain a participatory approach in their work. They also stated that it is necessary that participation is a base-line of institutional philosophy and not just an approach of one or two professionals working in an institution. Summarizing the experience from the project, based on interviews with professionals who participated in the project, Žižak (2005) concludes that participation is easier for children than for adults. For genuine and active participation of children 179



in the intervention system, both, children and adults, should be equally prepared. Participation of children and young people gives good results for everyone involved, especially when taking into account the following issues: consent and willingness of all interested parties, good preparation, awareness, defined roles and expectations and minimum technical requirements. Children’s Perspective on Foster Care The purpose of this research was directly related to developing new knowledge needed to improve the quality of foster care of children. General research objective was researching and understanding foster care from the perspective of foster children and birth children of foster parents, as well as adults with experience of living in foster care as children, i.e. exploring and understanding the user’s perspective. Participative goal of this research was to increase the level of children’s participation in research and to “move” participants from active participants toward partnership with researchers. In other words, as the involvement of participants was one of the fundamental ideas and values of this research, efforts were made during the research to raise the level of involvement of children. The key participants in this research were children (foster children and birth children of foster parents) and adults with experience of living in foster care as children. The overall number of participants was 50. In order to achieve its purpose and objectives, the research was based on direct data collection from research participants (through interviews). Once again, we’ve used qualitative methodology respecting all key ethical issues. All research goals and objectives were achieved. Based on the results of this research, several conclusions and recommendations for improving foster care of children in Croatia were proposed from the perspective of children. Research participants have distilled their specific experiences into a number of very specific recommendations for professionals, foster parents and foster children. These recommendations are related to: – the importance of the relationship between children and professionals (primarily professionals from social welfare centres and children’s homes, but also foster parents), – the need for overcoming feelings of uncertainty and insecurity that arise due to lack of involvement and communication with children during placement, – consideration of family circumstances and possible interventions, primarily from the perspective of the child and in the child’s best interest, and not the parents’, as well as more stringent and timely interventions on birth parents, – the need for normalization of out-of-home care (children point out that life in out-of-home placement (foster family or children’s home) can be evaluated as good, despite some bad aspects, and that it is unnecessary to categorize people, circumstances and interventions too severely (an approximation of a normal, natural family life is preferable), 180



– the need for greater inclusion and cohesion (in deciding on interventions, life in the foster family, relationship with the birth family, foster parents, professionals), – the need for reinforcing the children’s confidence in foster care (children advise other children that foster care is for their own good), – the demand that, in addition to following formal procedures, a professional must be able to demonstrate essential human interest in the children and their life. When the research team members presented the findings and conclusions of the research to participants, they concluded that study participants had positive impressions regarding the presented findings and the entire research. We heard statements like: I think that the presentation covers everything... experiences are different; I’m enjoying all of it; I agree with most of what we’ve seen. Children and adolescents stated that foster care of children from the children’s perspective is an important subject that merits further research because maybe some children are not doing well in their foster family; children are suffering and that should be fixed; some things need to be known and it’s great that someone is doing research so that others can see the faults and advantages of this; it might activate the consciousness and conscience of some people who read it; all children have to be asked how they feel in foster care – that’s important, as is their consent. In general, it is possible to conclude that the children felt good during the research and after hearing the findings. They reported that their safety during the interviews was important, as well as the fact that the researchers came to their foster family to see how they were doing. Now, at the end of the research, they feel good about the obtained results because we can help other children in this way; their experience could have been different if someone had done something sooner; it’s a good feeling to know that someone thinks of you and includes you in activities – if not for yourself, then for other children; she could be a part of it; feels more mature; she feels like she matters; they know someone cares about them; our opinion goes further... we’re being heard. Generally, it was confirmed that the research included all elements of foster care important to children and young people. Although the majority of participants agreed with this statement, phrased by one participant as it’s all written here, this part of the conversation still contained occasional revisiting of the subject of working with birth parents and foster parents. This only confirms that speaking with children and young people, especially on such delicate issues, is not a matter of one encounter, but rather a continuous process. The questions asked in the final part of the group conversation were intended to confirm the research participants’ agreement with the findings and how they would 181



be presented to the public. They feel that the publication of results is important, particularly because of the recommendations for professionals and foster parents. Continued cooperation and participation are considered important and possible. They verbalize it as follows: it’s nice to be a part of something; it’s not boring; I don’t have a problem talking about my life; it’s good to be involved. Adult participants of this study also expressed their agreement and satisfaction with the findings, as well as the form of the report and gave consent for the publication of the findings in the presented form. There was further discussion about the recommendations, with particular emphasis on the desires and needs of participants and their offer to continue to participate in various activities aimed at improving the quality of foster care (and awareness of people about foster care) because they think that due to personal experience and strong motivation they can be of great use and help to foster children, as well as foster parents and professionals. In addition to the above mentioned direct recommendations of research participants, we can summarize two general conclusions followed by recommendation for policy and practice of out-of-home placement for children in Croatia. 1. This research confirms that children are competent partners in conversation when it comes to their life experience. The conclusion is based on the fact that the children, after being adequately informed about the objectives and purpose of the research, voluntarily participated in the research. As participants, the children competently, in accordance to their age and experience, described their experience of foster care and voluntarily participated in authorizing the written version of their interviews. Furthermore, the conclusion is based on the fact that some of them were interested in continued participation in the joint analysis of gathered results and guidelines. This conclusion led to following recommendations: – Results, conclusions and recommendations of the research should be presented to participants for discussion, expansion and finalizing. The second outcome of the realization of this recommendation could be a formulation and description of a model for participatory work with beneficiaries of social welfare services. – Children with the appropriate experience and suitable age should be invited and engaged as consultants in the process of preparation of documents and strategies related to out-of-home child care, so that they can offer their personal opinion from their perspective and represent the interests of beneficiaries. – Encourage the establishment of associations, forums and similar beneficiary organizations in terms of establishing a legitimate and continuous presence of the beneficiary (children’s) perspective in the public child care system. 2. In this research we identified, described and documented, through powerful statements of participants, the importance of informing children about all the key features of forms of care available to them, as well as the importance of involving children as participants in the planning and decision making in all stages of care. 182



Children are not only good participants in research; they are primarily interested and good participants in the intervention sense. Research participants speak about foster care, as well as the entire system of care, in different ways according to their age and experience, but their statements still contain the emotional dimension that further indicates the importance of professionally based communication with children, i.e. the importance of conversation in the participatory sense (deciding about placement and the course of the intervention) and the intervention sense (nurturing children’s memories, working on experiences, especially traumatic ones, venting emotions). Having in mind importance of involving children we believe that: – Guidelines and standards for communication between professionals and children being prepared for separation from their birth families should be developed. The standards should include the age and gender perspective, and set the guidelines for conduct of professionals related to information about placement, involvement in decision making about placement, supervision of placement, termination of placement and preparation of a transition plan. Participation of Children – Comparison of the Two Croatian Examples As stated above, involvement of children from active participation to partnership with the researchers was one of our goals in the above described studies. So, we sought to achieve this through active application of well-known principles of child participation in all stages of research. It is well known that participation is possible (and desirable) from the research planning stage to the stage of formulation and dissemination of conclusions based on the findings. In order to allow more space and possibility for participation and empower the position of the beneficiary, both in the context of interventions and in the context of research with children, in these two researches we sought to find a method to get participants more involved and to enable them to participate beyond merely “providing data”. Table 1 gives an overview of the stages of the two researches: Social-Pedagogical Diagnosis- Beneficiaries’ Participation in Process of Needs Assessment and Intervention Planning and Children’s Perspective on Foster Care, with reference to child participation in various stages. In the research “Social-pedagogical diagnosis” it is obvious form the table that active involvement of participants is present in three research stages. In the second stage usual research methods were used (obtaining information about the research and consenting for participation in research, giving consent for the interview, reviewing the interview, providing feedback and comments on the transcribed interview) while the third phase included working on the interviews transcript with each participant (when possible), using time lines, time maps, identification of risks/needs and so on. The table also shows that the active involvement of research participants in “Children’s perspective on Foster care research” is present in three out of five planned stages of this research. Furthermore, it shows that the usual methods of child participation were applied during the stage of conducting the research. The new 183



development and a significant step toward a higher level of child participation in research, in our opinion, were achieved during the stage of presenting the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the research to the participants. During the conceptualization stage of the research and during the stage of conducting the research, it was agreed that the findings, conclusions and recommendations would be presented to and verified with the participants. To that effect, a meeting was organized for all of the research participants and one third of participants came to the meeting. The presentation of research findings was carried out in five parallel small group discussions with regard to participant group (foster children, foster adolescents, children/adolescents placed in a children’s home after an experience in foster care, birth children of foster parents and adults with experience in foster care as children). In a group discussion that followed after the presentation of results, all of the participants expressed their consent for the findings, conclusions and recommendations to be presented to the public in the form prepared and presented to them by the research team. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that this stage of the research was completed with obtaining consent from research participants for the research findings, as well as conclusions and recommendations formulated on the basis of these findings, to be presented to the public. Table 1. Methods of child participation in the research Methods of participation: Stages of the research: Social-Pedagogical Diagnosis: Beneficiaries’ Participation in Process of Needs Assessment and Intervention Planning (2003-2005) Planning the research drafting the research

Children’s Perspective on Foster Care (2010-2011)

without participation Discussion in focus groups with children and young people placed in institutions on the ways in which they see, understand and think about the possibilities of their participation in assessment and treatment process -creation of theoretical conception of the project. Conceptual starting point of research confirmed and some new questions arose. Continued

184



Table 1. Continued Methods of participation: Stages of the research: Conducting the research -obtaining information about the research and consenting for participation in research - giving consent for the interview -reviewing the interview -providing feedback and additional comments on the transcript of the interview Data processing draft of findings, conclusions and guidelines

-analysis of interviews with participants through following methods: time maps (Mollenhauer & Uhlendorf, 1995), time line (Kobolt, 1996), -identification of risks/needs and coding (Jeđud, Novak & Koller-Trbović, 2005)

-obtaining information about the research and consenting for participation in research -giving consent for the interview -reviewing the interview -providing feedback and additional comments on the transcript of the interview without participation

Presentation of findings, without participation conclusions and recommendations of the research to participants

-participation in workshops that presented the findings and conclusions -commenting on the findings and conclusions -giving consent for publication and further dissemination of the findings and conclusions -giving consent for the use of verbatim statements of participants (quotes) in the final version of the text

Presentation of findings, without participation conclusions and recommendations to the broader professional public

without participation

185



Taking into account all the above, it is, once again, confirmed that children are competent interviewees and partners when it comes to their life experience. They are interested in participation (in research as well as in intervention decision-making) and it is very important to involve children and draw upon their knowledge, skills and abilities. Children gained a sense that their opinions and experiences were valued. Their concerns were heard and their comments were incorporated into research that benefits society. We can conclude that in a 5 years period (from the end of first project till the beginning of the new one), we broadened participation in aspects related to presentation of findings but at the same time we narrowed a window of participation in data processing. This is, however, a rather simplistic view, which does not take in account the purpose of these researches, context in which the researches were conducted, participants etc. Nevertheless it’s clear that participation is not a horizontal or static state but a complex and circular process. This kind of understanding of participation (in our perspective as researchers and scientist) has also developed in time through reading, discussing and field experience and was not clear from the start. CURRENT CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH WITH CHILDREN IN CROATIA WITHIN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL PEDAGOGY

It seems that participation, and participatory research is an “old new” or constant challenge within Croatian social pedagogy on practical, scientific and evidently on public policy level. Focusing exclusively on the research process, several obstacles to active participation of children can be identified and divided in three major groups: 1) System related obstacles; 2) Person related obstacles; 3) Technical obstacles. These three elements form a puzzle and need to be considered to ensure participation. Each of these can be considered separately or added to the puzzle in different sequences to produce the same outcome: the change or improvement or – in this case – obstacles that must be resolved. Therefore, above mentioned obstacles are perceived as challenges in introducing and developing a rather new concept of active participation of young people in the field of research, within the Croatian intervention system for youth with behavioural problems. Potential answers to these challenges are discussed in order to improve the quality of participation in research. System Related Obstacles Following the “top-down” approach, the first set of obstacles are those related to culture of participation in Croatian society in general, in the intervention system for children in particular, and with organizational structure of institutions. When it comes to the structure of formal institutions in Croatia, they all are centralistic and paternalistic oriented to a great extent, giving not much opportunities for the beneficiaries to be 186



part of decision making processes. In case of research, one can often find that the chief of the institution has the power to allow (or not) access to the institution without any real consultation, nor participation of children in question. The culture of participation is almost non-existing within the system and is held somewhere at the decoration level or in some good examples at the consultation level as Hart (1992) describes. This poses one important, even paradox, question: How can there be participation in research if there is no participation in everyday life in institutions? Person Related Obstacles Attitudes and personal characteristics of individuals can be serious barriers to participation. There are three main groups of people who influence the participatory process of research: professionals, beneficiaries (children and youth) and researchers. Professionals are often not familiar with participatory research and often don’t have trust in participation of beneficiaries in general. All of this is very often accompanied with low job satisfaction and high level of job related stress which makes all new efforts put in front of them, seen as additional hard work without being able to see the potential benefits. Beneficiaries are used to being treated like “objects” and also have no real interest and trust in participation. However on practical level, children and youth are very open for the possibility to participate, but when the support of professionals who work with them is missing, that is not enough to make participation a part of culture. Checkoway (2011) also states that it is difficult to involve young people when they do not view themselves as the ones that can create change when they lack resources and support from adults. Researchers at the other hand, often find themselves fighting the “institutional barrier”, trying at the same time to educate, motivate and mobilize both professionals and children. One important question for the researcher is also his/her own continuum of participation – how far are we willing to go to ensure participation? Shall we stop at the basic level and be satisfied with fulfilling the ethical standards (consent, presentation of results etc.) or shall we strive to a wider participation – including professionals and children in the research from the scratch? Technical Obstacles Taylor (2004) said that one of the myths about participatory research is that it is quick and easy, but everyone who has tried to conduct one can tell that this really is a myth. Participatory research is time-consuming, it demands creation of physical and mental “space” for participation to happen – a place in time (when) and place in the institution (where people can meet, talk and create). In other words, participatory research includes time and resources as every kind of collaborative problem solving approach requires. When we talk about time, one important thing regarding time comes to our mind – critical element related to time is the amount needed to develop trusting relationship with children, practitioners and policy makers. 187



CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Figure 1 shows participatory action research projects development in Croatia, in relation to time-line and stakeholders. As we’ve mentioned earlier in the paper, our experiences and projects are limited, but substantial when it comes to insights and gained knowledge. Projects Social-Pedagogical Diagnosis: Beneficiaries’ Participation in the Process of Needs Assessment and Intervention Planning was our base-line where we gathered initial knowledge and experiences, on which we planned new projects (Children’s Perspective on Foster Care being one of them, most elaborated in participation sense). One can observe how different stakeholders who participated in the project and in development of this new research paradigm change: academics being “constant” while there is an obvious lack of decision-makers (until recent time).

Figure 1. Participatory action research projects development in Croatia: time and stakeholders.

The current position concerning participatory action research in Croatia could be named as a preparation phase for conducting actual participatory projects that would include all interested parties: beneficiaries, professionals, researchers, decision-makers and public. Till this point researchers and academics played a crucial role by initiating projects that enabled some insights and experiences about the participatory paradigm, as well as writing and talking about participation and in that way promoting the idea and the ethics of participatory work. The problem is that this so called preparation phase already lasted (too) long (since the beginning of 2000), and the real interest and resources for actual participatory research projects continuously lack. It seems that the idea of participatory action research, as well as a participation of children in care, is far much more developed in education and on university level, and not so much in practice. Practitioners are not yet ready to accept and implement the notion 188



of participation, even though they are obliged by the law to ensure the children’s participation in their own upbringing. The bad news is that the current economic situation and the general feeling of insecurity effect directly the implementation of new standards, but the good news for Croatia at this point is the support and growing interest on policy level (Child’s Ombudsman, Ministry of Social Policy and Youth). Due to Ministry of Social Policy and Youth’s mission of deinstitutionalization and implementation of new forms of alternative care, there is a growing interest in action research projects as a valuable and needed “tool” for achieving real change. In effort to work on deinstitutionalization, decision-makers are relying more and more on academics, asking them for their help in developing action research projects. This could (and the emphasis is on could) be the beginning of a new “action” phase, but only if decision-makers remain on the intention to support, both professionally and financially, this kind of projects and the participation paradigm. We shall try to reflect the following features of participatory action research given by Kemmis and McTaggart (2000), more extensively to increase our own experience and understanding of participatory action research. – Participatory action research is a social process which aims to transform both theory and practice. As Kemmis and McTaggart (2000, p. 283) state, participatory action research does not regard either theory or practice as preeminent in the relationship theory-practice. It aims to develop each in relation to the other. It doesn’t aim to develop forms of theory that are beyond practice or stand above practice as if practice could be determined without regard to the practical situation that confronts practitioners in their ordinary lives and work. On the other hand, it doesn’t aim to develop forms of practice that might be regarded as self-justifying. Participatory action research explores the potential of different perspectives, theories that could help to illuminate particular practices as a basis for developing critical insights and ideas about how things might be transformed. Participatory action research can reduce the gap between research and practice. In the context of research as an area for change, these authors speak of participatory action research, distinguishing it from the “academic” research, noting that participatory research is increasingly spread in the form of social practices. Participatory research is also closer to professionals working in practice due to the research techniques, such as interviewing, immediate and direct work with users. This shift (in the mind of people as well as in direct work) from academic research that measures and reports, but rarely changes actual living and working conditions, to action research where everyone who is interested can participate, act and change, is especially important for social pedagogy. Namely, every discipline that works that closely with people, trying to help them and make their lives different and better, has to incline to action research more, giving people right to participate in creating better understanding of their own problems and needs. This kind of research promotes cooperation between theory and practice, between researchers and practitioners, between beneficiaries and professionals, overcoming the “us against them” positions making everyone a part of a dialogue. 189



– Participatory action research is participatory, practical and collaborative. Markovic (2008) states that in contemporary Western culture “listening to voices’’ of marginalized groups (children, ethnic and racial minorities, homosexuals, people with disabilities, women, etc.) is inherent moral imperative. Furthermore, Withmore (2001) sees research as a way to support the marginalized (vulnerable) groups and to inspire and demand change on policy and practice level. All stakeholders must participate and collaborate; each group has specific “tasks”. The task of stakeholders coming from the sphere of science is to focus on the research of social phenomena, but also on transfer and dissemination of knowledge and advocacy for change based on research (the promotion of evidence-based practice). Mittelstrasse (1982, cited in Čović, 2006) emphasizes that science and universities are not only institutions that teach and spread knowledge, but also institutions that provide guidance in social life. Task of decision-makers is to ask for, initiate, participate and act upon research results in compliance with practice and beneficiaries, responding to new social trends and needs of different vulnerable groups. The most prominent position is the position of professionals working in practice, whose task is to cooperate, at the same time representing and empowering both themselves and their beneficiaries. At last, but not in any case the least, are the beneficiaries, and this ends the circle of collaboration: if we have confident and empowered beneficiaries who are ready to express their needs and be actively involved in everyday life, intervention course and research, we will have more “pressure” and motivation to be more proactive on academic, policy and practice level. – Participatory action research is critical and reflexive. Until now, in our country this reflexive and critical position is mainly situated in the domain of academics and researchers. The idea of reflective professionals on every level of the system (from policy makers to practitioners) is not yet a common thing in our country. And indeed in cases where practice and policy are overburdened with problems like financial resources and changes in legislative (which are not so rare currently in Croatia), then, academics hold “the mirror” that reflects the current state of art, reminding all stakeholders to “look themselves in it”. In the past 10 or more years, there has been a lot of learning, self-criticism, discussions, insights and reflections within academic circles, which was not followed by the same amount of active re-thinking on the practice and policy level. We believe that will change, but only if academics continuously remind practitioners and decision-makers on the need for joint action based on mutual respect. In conclusion, we offer no conclusion, but in constant reflexive manner we are offering more questions for us and for potential readers: Is there a way not to promote and advocate for participation in post-modern/post-crisis time? Could there be (practically) no participation in this time of crisis and need for new effective, cocreative solutions?

190



It is clear that broadening the possibilities for participation is a “must” for all stakeholders: policy makers, researchers, professionals, beneficiaries. At the end we quote Checkoway (2011) who talks about empowerment of the individual, organization, and community and says the following: “individuals participate, organizations develop and communities change.” With this paper our intention was to participate in order to start discussion and encourage development and change. REFERENCES Ajduković, M., Rajter, M., & Sušac, N. (2010). Sudjelovanje djece i roditelja u pripremi epidemiološkog istraživanja nasilja nad djecom: Iskustva fokusnih grupa (Participation of children and parents in the preparation of an epidemiological study of violence against children: Experiences of focus groups). Dijete i društvo, 12(1/2), 67–81. Bellefeuille, G., & Ricks, F. (2010). Relational inquiry: A child and youth care approach to research. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1235–1241. Čačinovič Vogrinči, G., & Mešl, N. (2007). Establishing cooperative relationship in social work. In G. Čačinovič Vogrinčič, L. Kobal, N. Mešl, & M. Možina (Eds.), Establishing cooperative relationships and personal contact in social work (pp. 3–49). Zagreb: University of Zagreb. Carter, B. (2009). Tick box for child? The ethical positioning of children as vulnerable, researchers as barbarians and reviewers as overly cautious. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 858–864. Cashmore, J. (2002). Promoting the participation of children and young people in care. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 837–847. Checkoway, B. (2011). What is youth participation? Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 340–345. Clark, J. (2004). Participatory research with children and young people: Philosophy, possibilities and perils. Retrieved April 29, 2014 from http://www.academia.edu/1144538/Participatory_research_ with_children_and_young_people_philosophy_possibilities_and_perils Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41(12), 1667–1676. Čović, A. (2006). Pluralizam i pluriperspektivizam (Pluralism and pluriperspectivsm). Filozofijska istraživanja, 26(1), 7–12. Czymoniewicz-Klippel, M. T. (2010): “Improper” participatory child research: Morally bad, or not? Reflections from the ‘Reconstructing Cambodian Childhoods’ study. Childhoods Today, 3(2), 1–26. Hart, R. (1992). Children’s participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. UNICEF Innocenti Essays, 4. Florence, Italy: International Child Development Centre of UNICEF. Hill, M., Davis, J., Prout, A., & Tisdall, K. (2004). Moving the participation agenda forward. Children & Society, 18, 77–96. Jeđud, I. (2011). Modeli participacije i njihova refleksija u hrvatskoj praksi. (Participation models and their reflexion in croatian practice). Dijete i društvo, 13(1/2), 31–43. Jeđud, I., Novak, T., & Koller-Trbović, N. (2005). Primjeri neposrednog rada s korisnicima na procjeni potreba i planiranja intervencija (Examples of work with children and youth in process of assessment ad intervention planning). In N. Koller-Trbović & A. Žižak (Eds.), Users´ participation in the process of needs assessment and intervention planning: Social-pedagogical approach (pp. 64–83). Zagreb: Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Zagreb. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Kobolt, A. (1996). Social-pedagogical diagnosis: Selfpresentation as a basis for planning individual educational plans. Internal material. Koller-Trbović, N., & Žižak, A. (2005). Users´ participation in the process of needs assessment and intervention planning: Social-Pedagogical approach. Zagreb: Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Zagreb.

191


I. J. BORIĆ & A. MIROSAVLJEVIĆ Marković, J. (2008). Je li etično etički istraživati s djecom? Neka etička pitanja u istraživanju folklorističkih i kulturnoantropoloških aspekata djetinjstva (Is it ethical to conduct research with children? Some ethic questions in research of culture-antropological aspects of childhood). Etnološka tribina, 31(38), 147–165. Mollenhauer, K., & Uhlendorff, U. (1995). Sozialpädagogische Diagnosen II. Weinheim und München: Juventa. Official Gazette. (2009). National Strategy of Prevention of Behavior Disorders of Children and Youth 2009–2012 (Official Gazette, 98/09). Official Gazette. (2011). Social Welfare Act (Official Gazette, 32/12). Schenk, K., & Williamson, J. (2005). Ethical approaches to gathering information from children and adolescents in international settings: Guidelines and resources. Washington, DC: Population Council. Stephenson, P., Gourley, S., & Miles, G. (2004). Child participation. ROOTS 7 Resources (R. Blackman, Ed.). Teddington, UK: Tearfund. Taylor, P. (2004). User participation in work. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Retrieved January 04, 2012 from http://www.caledonia.org.uk/p-taylor.htm Thomas, N., & O’Kane, C. (1998). The ethics of participatory research with children. Children & Society, 12, 336–348. Withmore, E. (2001). “People listened what we had to say”—Reflections on an emancipatory qualitative evaluation. In I. Shaw & N. Gould (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work. London: Sage Publications. Žižak, A. (2005). Etička pitanja socijalnopedagoške dijagnostike (Ethical questions in Social-Pedagogy Diagnostics). In N. Koller-Trbović, & A. Žižak (Eds.), Users´ participation in the process of needs assessment and intervention planning: Social-Pedagogical approach (pp. 121–135). Zagreb: Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Zagreb. Žižak, A., & Vizek Vidović, V. (2004). Participacija djece u procesu odgoja-ostvarenja prava djece smještene u domovima za djecu u Republici Hrvatskoj: Model malih participativnih programa (Children participation in the process of upbringing—rights of children placed in children’s homes in Croatia: Model of small participative programs). Zagreb: Udruga za inicijative u socijalnoj politici.

192


CATHY SHARP1

CREATING A COMMUNITY OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICE Supporting Children and Mothers in Recovery from Domestic Abuse

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE CONTEXT OF THE CEDAR PROGRAMME IN SCOTLAND

Cedar (Children Experiencing Domestic Abuse Recovery) provides a therapeutic 12-week group work programme for children and young people in recovery from domestic abuse, alongside a concurrent group work programme for their mothers. The programme is an evidence-based approach originally developed in Canada (Marshall et al., 1995). Domestic abuse is increasingly recognised as an issue for children and as a serious public health issue. The piloting of Cedar in Scotland was a response to evidence about the need created by the impact of domestic abuse on children and young people, evidence of the effectiveness of interventions for children and young people and the views of children and young people themselves. The groupwork programme is based on evidence about the impact of trauma on child development; what helps to protect children through developing resilience; how abuse and violence used against women can significantly undermine the mother-child relationship and the respective merits of individual support and groupwork (Humphreys, Houghton & Ellis, 2008). Children and young people themselves view domestic abuse as something that is happening to them as well as their mothers (Stafford & Smith, 2009). It is also now more widely understood that notions of ‘witnessing’ do not begin to describe the variety of ways in which children experience domestic abuse (Irwin, Waugh & Bonner, 2006). The tactics of ‘coercive control’ (Stark, 2007), whereby a large element of the abuse goes beyond physical harms to include sexual and psychological abuse of the mother and child, reduce mothers’ and children’s ‘space for action’ as they are isolated from support, deprived of basic needs, subjected to routine violence and intimidation, punished or rewarded depending on their compliance and restricted in their ability to control their own routines in the home and wider community. The literature suggests that few women and children have talked about the abuse either whilst it was occurring or afterwards; there can be a mutual ‘conspiracy of silence’ in which children protect their mothers from the knowledge of how much they know about the abuse and mothers simultaneously try to protect children from F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 193–205. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


C. SHARP

‘knowing’ about the abuse they experience, or assume that ‘moving on’ from abuse means not speaking about it (Humphreys, Thiara & Skamballis, 2010). The Cedar Pilot in Scotland Precise measures of the extent of domestic abuse in Scotland and the numbers of children affected by it are problematic. Whilst incident data is neither a description nor measure of domestic abuse, the age and gendered nature of incident rates,2 suggest that very high numbers of children in Scotland have lived with, or are living with, domestic abuse. In response, the development and evaluation of the Cedar projects in Scotland was one of thirteen priorities identified in the Scottish Government National Domestic Abuse Delivery Plan for Children & Young People (Scottish Government, 2008) In taking this forward, a Cedar National Partnership was led by the third sector through Scottish Women’s Aid working with three local authorities.3 These authorities had Scottish Government funding to pilot the programme between 2008-2011 in the City of Edinburgh, Fife and Forth Valley. Each area employed two Cedar Coordinators responsible for managing and co-ordinating the group work programme. Local statutory and third sector agencies donated staff time to co-facilitate groups alongside the coordinators. Figure 1 shows the structure of the pilot in Scotland.4

Figure 1. The Cedar Pilot in Scotland 2008-11.

Multi-agency Local Advisory Groups (LAGs) in each of the pilot areas comprised the Cedar Coordinators, their managers and a small number of other staff from key partner agencies. Many of these agencies made referrals and provided staff to cofacilitate Cedar groups. 194


CREATING A COMMUNITY OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

OUR OFFER OF ACTION RESEARCH: TO BRING A DIFFERENT WORLD INTO EXISTENCE

In this context of recovery from coercive control and silencing, the promise of action research to develop new forms of collaboration and empowerment is particularly compelling: Sometimes in action research what is most important is how we can help articulate voices that have been silenced. How do we draw people together in conversation when they were not before? (Reason, 2006) Our ambitions for action research were based on our individual personal and professional histories and interests in research and practice within social research, academia and social work. The Cedar evaluation offered a chance to use an inquiry process to bridge the research-practice divide, enhance the use of ‘practitioner wisdom’ and promote new forms of collaboration, particularly to empower children and young people. Cedar was an ideal programme in which to adopt this approach as the programme values were strongly child and mother focused (Loosely et al., 2006) and the programme content and design was based on theories of experiential learning, empowerment and dialogue that are the foundations of participatory practice. Our ambitions were not hidden, but discussed as part of a strong ethical and value-driven stance and desire to undertake worthwhile work5. We were very aware of the power relationships at play between researchers and participants and between adults and children, underscored in a project designed to support children’s recovery from an abuse of power. Others had proposed that children with experience of domestic abuse could be actively involved in research by both finding solutions in their own lives and contributing to those which will improve the lives of other children (Houghton, 2008). Going beyond securing ‘informed consent’, we sought to be affirming, respectful of human dignity and to express our commitment to social justice. We hoped to extend the participation of children, young people and their mothers to enable them to make their own unique contributions to programme development at a national level and establish a culture of partnership and adult accountability to children and young people and women experiencing domestic abuse. Furthermore, we wanted to see the actual use and integration of the findings by practitioners in timely and practical ways; not simply to produce an after-theevent description of ‘good practice’ (Sharp, 2005). We saw this as a ‘knowledge-based practice approach’, designed to blend the views of children, young people and mothers participating in the programme, with the views and experience of practitioners and formal research evidence from elsewhere (Humphreys et al., 2003). Given this multi-informant approach, we placed a strong emphasis on maintaining the integrity of children’s voices at each stage of the project, including making the findings as accessible as possible to the children and their mothers, to affirm their key messages to us and value their contribution. 195


C. SHARP

An Action Research Approach to Evaluation Important principles of the approach were to provide voice, feedback and support for ongoing positive and creative modifications to the Cedar programme. The proposed approach was quite different from ‘usual’ evaluation practice. We were aware of the need to confront the cultural barriers to evidence use and generation, including fears of funders’ expectations and desire to ‘prove’ impact. The evaluation team acted as ‘critical friends’ to the pilots, ensuring that the review of evidence was systematic, facilitating and recording discussions, providing challenge and reporting emerging ‘findings’ in ways that facilitated further testing, reflection and sharing of learning to influence practice and report both processes and outcomes. An Overview of Research Design and Methods The structure of the pilot described in Figure 1 was important in providing some of the ‘architecture’ for building-in inquiry processes and spaces. Within each area the LAG was developed as a reflective forum and across the three areas, a Coordinator’s Hub or ‘action learning set’ and three larger ‘Practice Exchange Events’ brought people together through various group processes. The Coordinator’s Hub provided a space for individual and peer critical reflection, particularly around practice issues relating to referral and assessment processes and decisions. Insights from this process were also shared at LAGs. The ‘Practice Exchange Events’ brought people together from across the areas to consider purposes, analyse and validate evidence and reflect on practice in a more formal and structured way. The Cedar National Partnership also brought the three pilots together and provided an additional forum for further review. Within these spaces, we used many standard data collection techniques, adapted wherever possible to involve people in the analysis of the emerging data, and a number of more innovative methods, largely those that enabled sharing and analysis of stories in different ways. The monitoring and evaluation framework was developed collaboratively through an appreciative story-sharing process. Subsequently, over a cycle of meetings, the LAGs used that framework to analyse statistical data including programme referral and assessment data. This included the volume and source of referrals, gaps and the age and gender of those referred to the programme. The data also included qualitative ‘real-time’ accounts from coordinators and others about experiences that they considered to be significant for the development of the programme. Amidst these exchanges, there were two further important sources of feedback data, from group participants and from co-facilitators. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with children, young people and their mothers in both

196



2009 and 2010. Initial analysis was supported by reporting selective quotes to each LAG; key messages were then written in friendly and straightforward ways and sent both to the children, young people and mothers who had been interviewed and the wider Cedar professional community. Secondly, the perspectives of group co-facilitators were included through three separate web-based surveys, which included their views of their own individual learning and the impact on their wider organisations.6 Together these various structures and processes for evidence generation, sharing and analysis helped the pilot teams to explore whether and how the programme was working and what needed to change. Over time, as the cycles of action and reflection set in motion became established, the large events attracted a growing number of participants which enabled wider testing, refinement and dissemination of emerging insights and lessons. The second event in November 2009 was attended by over 40 people from across all three pilots, the National Partnership and the Scottish Government. The event centred on a series of small group discussions using World Café principles (World Café, 2011) which allowed collective sense-making, the formulation of lessons of the pilot to date and implications for the remaining period of the pilot. The final event in December 2010 was attended by around 60 people similar to those that attended previously, but also included people from third sector agencies and local authorities from other areas of Scotland. Most significantly, new participants included Cedar Graduates.7 Their inclusion was mobilised through the strong relationships fostered by Cedar coordinators with group participants and by a strategic commitment to extending participation within one of the pilot local authority areas. The programme statistics and cost-benefit data were reported to this event, but the primary focus was on nine Cedar ’stories of practice’. They were composite stories based on themes from across the range of narrative sources. Figure 2 shows the narrators, titles and themes. At the event these stories were ‘told’ by volunteers for whom they had some resonance; story tellers included Cedar graduates, Coordinators and Co-facilitators. As evaluators, we chose them to synthesise and reflect the broad range of themes and outcomes. In reconstructing the narrative in this way, the anonymity provided by aggregation enabled personal and difficult material to be shared, whilst remaining resonant with the tellers. The stories were analysed through a dialogical group process which drew out key themes and learning by co-constructing nine storyboards in a ‘research gallery of living knowledge’ (Burns, 2007) and from which the participants together developed recommendations. This was adapted from the Storydialogue method for health promotion knowledge development and evaluation (Labonte & Feather, 1996).8 Young people and mothers were active participants, telling stories, participating in the group discussions and storyboards and highlighting key issues to report to funders.

197


C. SHARP

Stories from Cedar graduates

Theme

It’s Not My Fault, Other Kids Have It

Learning about domestic abuse for a young woman

Safety Planning

Safety planning is not straightforward for this 15 year? young man and his younger sister

Double Empathy

Insights from Cedar into her own childhood for a mother

Being Valued, Safety in Groups for Mothers

Cedar creates the create right atmosphere to discuss difficult issues

Parenting Better

Changes in family life

Mothers Readiness and Capacity for Group

A mother talks about her initial fears about group and how it helped her towards a more positive future

Stories from group facilitators Assessment

A Women’s Group Co-ordinator talks about the challenges of the assessment process

Learning at Work

A very experienced male co-facilitator talks about how much he learned from being in the Cedar group.

Not All Plain Sailing

The ups and downs of group facilitation told by a Coordinator

Figure 2. Narrators, titles and themes of the stories of practice. REFLECTIONS ON CREATING A COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY

This experience of the Cedar pilot and evaluation process has been an example of creating a community of inquiry within a community of practice, or what might be called a ‘community of reflective practice’. Communities of practice (CoPs) have been defined as professionals who share a common language of practice, and through which experiences and knowledge are shared to foster new approaches to problem solving and improvement (Bate & Robert, 2002). Communities of inquiry are as much about a culture of collaborative inquiry rather than a ‘body’ of people. They flourish through a balance of structured and informal opportunities to work, reflect and learn together in creative and engaging ways. Action research-led inquiry extended that co-construction of new knowledge through the active collaboration of programme participants and professional practitioners in the creation of a culture of inquiry and mutual learning. A number of factors seem to have helped to make that cultural shift.9 An interim evaluation report was important in synthesising and reporting on the emerging evidence and was an important crystallisation. This helped people to see a bigger 198



picture and recognise the different strands of the work coming together (Sharp et al., 2010). In a way it held up a ‘mirror’ to the programme to allow them to see themselves afresh, take stock of progress and chart the remaining challenges (Wadsworth, 2001). After this, there was a palpable shift in understanding of and support for this approach to evaluation. A number of conceptual and empirical factors seem to have been influential including developing the theory of change, feedback as a form of motivation, the participant voice and the related use of stories. Developing a Theory of Change From the earliest days, the evaluation approach had to confront the desire to be able to attribute long-term and far-reaching outcomes across a range of domains directly to Cedar. This search for a way to demonstrate the connections between important ‘upstream’ (preventative) contributions or interventions and downstream (remedial) goals is universal. Yet, the kind of positive outcomes that were expected, perhaps in education or criminal justice, went beyond the gift of any single agency or service. Given the complexity and wider systemic influences on outcomes for children and young people, ‘proof’ of wider change was an unobtainable and unrealistic goal. Establishment of what would have happened without the intervention was also conceptually, practically and ethically difficult. These arguments were often accepted at an intellectual level, but there remained worries about funder’s expectations. In some of the LAGs, there were revisited discussions about the need for some kind of longitudinal sample to track families over time, although some resistance too, on the ethical grounds that Cedar graduates should be allowed to ‘get on with their lives’ away from any reminder of the domestic abuse. These were important conversations to have, to establish the ground for the evaluation and develop trust and confidence in what it could demonstrate. What seemed to help was to explicitly articulate the theory of change of the programme; to set out the assumptions and expected steps through which change will occur.10 The earliest story-based work had started this process which culminated in the development of an ‘impact map’ – a chart of all the connections and impacts that might be expected. The value was in the discussions rather than the diagram; they encouraged honesty and realism in the claims for the programme and helped to focus the evaluation on process improvement and those outcomes that could be influenced and measured in meaningful ways. Probably the most useful breakthrough in this respect was a quote from a mother in the 2009 interviews. In describing how Cedar brought about a transformation in her way of thinking and concrete changes in her parenting, she said: “It’s definitely through the eyes of a bairn, Cedar, isn’t it?”11 This was a powerful indicator of change of perspective, of reframing of the ‘problem’ and thereby, opening up new solutions: for example, if a mother (or child) starts to see their (child’s) behaviour as a response to domestic abuse, rather than due to any failure on their part, the problem becomes one of being able to acknowledge this and find new ways of relating that do 199


C. SHARP

not blame each other.12 We felt that empirical evidence of this kind of insight and of associated behaviour change between mothers and children could provide confidence that both parties would be able to sustain their learning from the short programme and were set on the right pathway for the longer-term outcomes. This understanding of the dynamics of the change process meant that evaluation efforts should focus particularly on changes in the mother-child relationship, rather than attempting to track families over a number of years. For example, signs of change in the motherchild relationship included children reporting being able to talk to their mother more about things that made them feel sad or worried; mothers and children using Cedar language to defuse tense situations at home and family members beginning to relax and enjoy being in each other’s company. Figure 3 shows an extract from one of the stories of practice about these changes, in the words of a mother. Cedar’s been fantastic for her – her behaviour’s improved in the playground and the teachers have said she’s concentrating a lot better now. I’m managing much better too. I don’t get as angry with her now as I used to do because my reaction used to be to accuse her of ‘being like your f**king father’. Now, you’d be amazed! I’ll say to her ‘hands are not for hitting’ and she understands it, whereas before she would just lash-out big time with me! She’s still quite strong willed but it’s made me a lot more understanding and patient with her – most of the time anyway. I’m not as irate and I’m not as stressed and shouting at her and stuff. I’m more patient, a bit more relaxed and I do try to understand her point of view a bit more. Figure 3. An extract from the Parenting Better story of practice.

Feedback as Motivation Feedback arising from the routine cycles of action and reflection in which data was shared and analysed collectively, particularly through the LAGs, was an important motivational factor that also helped to shift and shape a culture of inquiry. Such feedback is often missing, yet is vital for adaptation and growth (Wheatley & KellnerRogers, 1999). This is feedback as a form of dialogue that motivates, builds on itself and draws others in, rather than one-way service user ‘feedback’. It was a chance for praise and recognition of the contributions of others. The statistics were also valued as a form of feedback and discussions of gaps helped air some of the attitudinal and unvoiced barriers to referral.13 Our continuing involvement was important in facilitating feedback by supporting the flows of information and intelligence and ‘keeping the minds of those running the project open to change and keeping the dialogue open’. Participant Voice The views of children, young people and mothers was especially valuable in reassuring the programme staff that their efforts were making a difference, helping 200



them to decide what they should keep doing and what might need to be altered. This ‘participant voice’ was a ‘valuable reality check’ for the programme and the evaluation: You are hearing from families what they feel is the difference, rather than from professionals what they have observed. Some of the outcomes might be ‘soft’ and difficult for professionals to measure but have real impact for the families. Hearing about the impact on families gave practitioners the confidence to tailor the revered ‘evidence-based’ programme to suit the Scottish context and local needs. This confidence was in contrast to earlier assumptions that something ‘evidencebased’ should not be altered, when they’d asked ‘What is sacred and what’s not? How much latitude do we have and how can we retain a balance between integrity of the programme and responsiveness?’ Looking back it has been suggested that ‘this term [evidence-based] can be a badge that allows us to feel OK about using this programme – we will not be criticised for wasting public money, it will ‘work’’. The Value of Stories The way that story and narrative based forms were used in different ways throughout the work helped to ‘make it real’ to people, allowed for acknowledgment and sharing of the content and impact of the work and so generated a ‘sense of ownership of the evaluation’. These stories revealed hopes and fears for Cedar from the start and unearthed, legitimised and shared the emotional and tacit elements of the work. Narrative accounts helped to notice and name important facets of the work that people may have not been aware of, may have considered to be ‘un-discussible’ or had simply chosen not to speak about. Much experience of this nature is not usually made explicit – perhaps not even brought to awareness by those who have it. In a certain sense some of the knowing doesn’t actually happen without the sharing.14 Creating an expectation and climate for sharing brings to the fore facets of the work that can provide reassurance, as well as those that cause anxiety. Narrative can also be the source of powerful metaphors; a mother naming Cedar as a ‘can of worms’ in relation to her own childhood showed a key ‘touch point’ or ‘experience hot spot’ – important for professionals to recognise and direct their efforts towards (Bate & Robert, 2007). For newcomers at the final large event, the ‘stories of practice’ acted as a form of dissemination of outcomes and helped to develop an understanding of ‘how’ the programme worked; such an understanding cannot be achieved without narrative. After hearing and analysing such accounts, it was a natural next step to consider what recommendations for policy and practice should follow on. The participation of Cedar graduates was influential in deciding to issue a ‘Ten Key Messages’ document that was sent to the Scottish Government and local authorities well in advance of the final report and which stressed that ‘Cedar should not be watered down’. 201


C. SHARP

Yoland Wadsworth’s work shows how important it is to create spaces and opportunities for consumers and professionals to come ‘side by side’ in safety to give each other feedback and that this does not necessarily always mean getting people together in the same room (Wadsworth, 2011). This example shows that there are a variety of spaces and ways in which perspectives and experience can be shared and that creating the right environment and ethos allows active participation to be extended in ways that respect and honour unique and compelling contributions. CONCLUSIONS: A DIFFERENT WORLD – THE CREATION OF PRACTICAL, LIVING KNOWLEDGE

A clear message from the experience of the national pilots was that Cedar is an important and powerful approach that can bring about transformational behavioural change for children, young people and families at risk. The pilot demonstrated that Cedar is a valuable way to begin to ‘undo the harm’ to children and helps to put an end to the ‘conspiracy of silence’ around domestic abuse in the family. Cedar had a positive impact on relationships between children and mothers and gave them a more positive future outlook. There was a sense that they had regained their ‘space for action’ as they reclaimed a sense of control over their own lives. They mentioned improved physical and mental health; better performance in school; and improved family relationships. The findings also demonstrated the value of the approach as a powerful and unique way for professionals to learn together by co-delivering the programme. The Scottish pilot enlarged understanding about the impact of domestic abuse on children and how they and their mothers wish practitioners and policy makers to respond. Cedar successfully engaged with children and young people from aged three to seventeen years old including both boys and girls and some children with additional needs.15 Notably, the programme achieved high completion rates of groups for children and young people; almost nine in ten children and young people that started a group completed it. In addition to the six Cedar coordinators, a total of 68 different people acted as co-facilitators for groups. These were positive and compelling outcomes from the Cedar pilot. We can be confident in these findings as emerging evidence arising from the implementation of the pilot has been trialled, interpreted and subjected to the ‘hard test of complex live practice’ (Wadsworth, 2011) Here, action research has supported the palpable growth in confidence in the Scottish model of Cedar and greater clarity about the core elements or ‘guiding principles’ which must be retained, and the local adaptation, which was, and will remain, necessary to make it work in each area (Sharp et al, 2011). This way of evaluating is certainly not ‘usual business’ for people who work in public services or for those that use them. Action research has bridged the researchpractice divide, enhanced recognition and use of ‘practitioner wisdom’ and promoted new forms of expert collaboration, including the enhanced participation of children, young people and their mothers in policy and practice developments. This represents a significant distance travelled from ‘victim’ to active participant: a testament to the 202



strength of the programme itself and the climate and opportunities created through action research. This approach has been shown to be viable at a modest, but translocal scale which has changed thinking about the nature of evidence and supported the co-creation of new practical and living knowledge. Participation in public services is often understood to be about consultation with service users or beneficiaries. This shows that it is possible to create the right structures and processes to encourage an appetite and capacity to engage with evidence of all kinds, extend the participation of professionals and enable those who have been marginalised and considered vulnerable to make active contributions to their own recovery and that of others. Here, the professionals delivering the programme and the evaluators were also active collaborators; as our desire was to achieve dialogue and participation, then our own voices must also be heard, and whilst not privileged over that of children and mothers, also not minimised. To minimise might seem democratic, but it recreates the ‘classic subject-object research relationship’ in which experts study communities (Jacobs, 2010). As evaluators, we were active ‘brokers’ of inquiry by joining in with the Cedar community of practice, supporting the professionals delivering the programme to make connections across professional, organisational and geographical boundaries. We paid careful attention to retaining the integrity of children’s voices, within the integration of multiple perspectives and sought ways to draw on and share experience and wisdom to make these forms of knowing explicit. This ‘brokering’ does seem to be a key factor that sets this approach aside from most current approaches to evaluation. There is a sense that this approach to evaluation strengthened the outcomes of the programme. It certainly gave confidence that the programme was robust and could deliver the intended outcomes and provided rich learning about how it worked and for whom. The experience of evaluation alongside a pilot programme of this nature has illustrated a number of challenges and this is instructive for those interested in wider debates about the use of pilots, evidence-based or informed practice and ‘roll-out’. In the UK, the future of such ‘pilot’ programmes may be limited, not least because of the changes in the wider funding climate. Nevertheless, such ‘knowledge coproduction’ is a good response to complexity and uncertainty in many areas of public policy and action that draws on the widest expertise and perspectives and promotes engagement and local ownership of shared, yet tentative, solutions. This kind of embedded inquiry can be a way to make better use of existing ‘good practice’ or ‘evidence-based’ interventions by re-inventing or customising programmes that were developed elsewhere and testing their effectiveness in the new context. Here the Cedar pilot evaluation was a significant influence on the subsequent award of funding from the Big Lottery Foundation ‘Becoming a Survivor’ fund to establish a national Cedar development project and provide funding for eleven new local projects over a 3 year period. So, the pilot may be over, but debates about evidence use and generation suggest it’s worth asking “When are you ever not ‘piloting’?” Questions about how we should act and what difference 203


C. SHARP

we’re making will always be with us. We will always need to talk to each other about what we ought to be doing if we wish to bring about a different world. NOTES 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 12

13

14 15

The work was done primarily by Dr Cathy Sharp (Director, Research for Real, www.research-for-real. co.uk) and Dr Jocelyn Jones (Director, Mindful Practice, www.mindfulpractice.co.uk). Dr Gina Netto (Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh) and Professor Cathy Humphreys (University of Melbourne, Australia) acted as our critical friends. With acknowledgement and thanks for comments on this chapter to Jocelyn Jones. These were recently put at one in a 100 of the population, based on Scottish Government, National Statistics, 2009-10, of which some 82% had a female victim and male perpetrator. Third sector refers to ‘not-for-profit’ agencies, which are neither public nor private sector agencies. The first Cedar groups started in January and the evaluation started in February 2009, with the pilot formally ending March 2011. A fuller discussion and bespoke ethical protocol is included in appendix 1 of the interim report (Sharp et al., 2010). This data was supplemented in 2010 by telephone follow-up interviews with co-facilitators to provide fuller understanding of their experience of running Cedar groups. This naming of young people and mothers who had completed the groupwork programme as graduates arose from a conundrum about how to describe them on the delegate list. These stories remain a good way to understand the programme and are available as audio files on the Cedar website: http://www.cedarnetwork.org.uk/voices-from-the-project/ [26/01/14] This reflection is supported by feedback from each Exchange Event and from a final review of the evaluation process held in summer 2011, through an anonymous survey. Quotes used can therefore not be attributed. Theory of Change is an adaptation of theory-based evaluation, first described in Weiss, C.H. (1995). Nothing so practical as a good theory: Exploring theory based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J.P. Connell, A.C. Kubisch, L.B. Schorr, & C.H. Weiss (Eds), New approaches for evaluating community initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen institute. For advice on the approach see the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/PED/Resources/documents/LogicModelGuide.pdf [26/01/14]. Bairn is a Scots & northern English word for a child. This became the title of the interim report. This kind of this kind of depth of insight, empathy and reframing is referred to as double-loop learning, in which previously taken-for-granted aspects of an issue are questioned and this questioning encourages a focus on problem-setting as well as problem solving. See Argyris, C., Putnam, R. & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action Science: Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention (p. 53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. For example, it could be (wrongly) assumed that very young children are too young to understand or be affected by domestic abuse and therefore they may not be referred. This powerful observation was made by one of the social work managers involved in the process. Between January 2009 and March 201, almost 200 children and young people completed a Cedar group. 39 groups for children and young people and 26 groups for mothers were run across the three pilot areas.

REFERENCES Bate, S. P., & Robert, G. (2007). Bringing user experience to healthcare improvement: The concepts, methods and practices of experience-based design. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing. Bate, S. P., & Robert, G. (2002). Knowledge management and communities of practice in the private sector: Lessons for modernizing the National Health Service in England and Wales. Public Administration, 80(4), 643–663.

204


CREATING A COMMUNITY OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICE Burns, D. (2007). Systemic action research. Bristol: Policy Press. Houghton, C. (2008). Making a difference: Young people speak to Scottish ministers about their priorities for the national domestic abuse delivery plan for children and young people. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Humphreys, C., Berridge, D., Butler, I., & Ruddick, R. (2003). Making research count: The development of knowledge-based practice. Research, Policy and Planning, 21(1), 41–50. Humphreys, C., Houghton, C., & Ellis, J. (2008). Literature review: Better outcomes for children and young people experiencing domestic abuse: Directions for good practice. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Retrieved January 26, 2014 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/08/04112614/0 Humphreys, C., Thiara, R. K., & Skamballis, A. (2010). Readiness to change: Mother–Child relationship and domestic violence intervention. British Journal of Social Work, 1–19. Irwin, J., Waugh, F., & Bonner, M. (2006). The Inclusion of children and young people in research on domestic violence. Communities, Children and Families in Australia, 1(1), 17–23. Jacobs, G. (2010). Conflicting demands and the power of defensive routines in participatory action research. Action Research, 8(4), 367–386. Labonte, R., & Feather, J. (1996). Handbook on using stories in health promotion. Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada. Loosely, S., Drouillard, D., Ritchie, D., & Abercromby, S. (2006). Groupwork with children exposed to woman abuse: A concurrent groupwork program for children & their mothers, children’s program manual. London, Ontario: The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex. Marshall, L., Miller, N., Miller-Hewitt, S., Sudermann, M., & Watson, L. (1995). Evaluation of groups for children who have witnessed violence. London, Canada: Centre for Research on Violence against Women and Children, Fanshawe College, the London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse and the University of Western Ontario. Reason, P. (2006). Choice and quality in action research practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(12), 187–203. Scottish Government. (2008). National domestic abuse delivery plan for children and young people. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Retrieved January 26, 2014 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ Publications/2008/06/17115558/0 Sharp, C. (2005). The improvement of public sector delivery: Supporting evidence based practice through action research. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research. Retrieved January 26, 2014 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/69582/0018055.pdf Sharp, C., Jones, J., Humphreys, C., & Netto, G. (2010). Through the eyes of a bairn, cedar interim evaluation report. Scottish Women’s Aid. Retrieved January 26, 2014 from http://www. scottishwomensaid.org.uk/tmp/CedarReport.pdf Sharp, C., Jones, J., Humphreys, C., & Netto, G. (2011). “We thought they didn’t see”. Cedar in Scotland— Children and mothers experiencing domestic abuse recovery. Final report. Scottish Women’s Aid. Retrieved January 26, 2014 from http://www.cedarnetwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ Evaluation-Report-DOWNLOAD1.pdf Stafford, A., & Smith, C. (2009). Practical guidance on consulting, conducting research and working in participative ways with children and young people experiencing domestic abuse. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wadsworth, Y. (2011). Building in research and evaluation: Human inquiry for living systems. London: Allen and Unwin. Wadsworth, Y. (2001). The mirror, the magnifying glass, the compass and the map: Facilitating participatory action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research. London: Sage. Wheatley, M., & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1999). What do we measure and why? Questions about the uses of measurement. Journal for Strategic Performance Measurement. Retrieved January 26, 2014 from http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/whymeasure.html World Café. (2011). Retrieved January 26, 2014 from http://www.theworldcafe.com/

205



VIVIAN R. RAMSDEN, SHARI MCKAY, SHIRLEY BIGHEAD, GAIL BOUCHER, CARRIE BOURASSA, PETER BUTT, ANDREA CLINTON, JACKIE CROWE, FRED FELIX, DEREK JORGENSON, KAREN LAROCQUE, NORA MCKEE, IRENE NKETIA, NORMA RABBITSKIN, ELLA THUNDERCHILD & TARA TURNER, CONJOINTLY WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITIES1

ENGAGING WITH THE COMMUNITY TO ENHANCE PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

BACKGROUND

Primary health care as defined by the World Health Organization in 1978 is: essential health care; based on practical, scientifically sound, and socially acceptable methods and technology; universally accessible to all in the community through their full participation; at an affordable cost; and geared toward self-reliance and selfdetermination (WHO & UNICEF, 1978). Primary health care shifts the emphasis of health care to the people themselves and their needs, reinforcing and strengthening their own capacity to shape their lives. Hospitals and primary health centres then become only one aspect of the system in which health care is provided. As a philosophy, primary health care is based on the overlap of mutuality, social justice and equality. As a strategy, primary health care focuses on individual and community strengths (assets) and opportunities for change (needs); maximizes the involvement of the community; includes all relevant sectors but avoids duplication of services; and uses only health technologies that are accessible, acceptable, affordable and appropriate. Primary health care is fully participatory and as such involves the community in all aspects of health and its subsequent actions (Anderson & McFarlane, 2000; Wass, 2000; WHO, 1999). Through integrating the concepts of empowerment, communityaction (WHO, 1999) and transformative learning (Mezirow & Associates, 1990; Mezirow & Associates, 2000), a better understanding of how best to transform the present sick-cure medical system of primary care into a model of primary health care which reflects values and works with the community on opportunities for change has evolved (Ramsden, Integrated Primary Health Services Model Research Team & Cave, 2003). This shifting of emphasis away from dependence on health care practitioners and towards personal involvement as well as, the need for more than improved health and medical services was echoed in the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (WHO, 1986). F. Rauch et al. (Eds.), Promoting Change through Action Research, 207–234. © 2014 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.


V. R. RAMSDEN ET AL.

ACTION RESEARCH WITHIN TWO HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS IN CANADA

The three important elements of action research are: participation; democracy/ consensus; and, transformation (Meyer, 2000; Ramsden, et al., 2003). All of these elements were and are an integral part of the iterative processes from engagement with the communities to the present. The process undertaken would be considered action research within the health care system in that: the community surveys designed with the communities were to identify community strengths and opportunities for change and subsequently to generate solutions to the practical problems which evolved; empowered all members of the research team (community members, health care providers and academic researchers); and, transformed the health care system with the communities (Greenhalgh, Humphrey & Woodard, 2011; Meyer, 2000; Ramsden, et al., 2003; Ramsden, McKay & Crowe, 2010). During data collection within the four unique communities, the findings/results were returned to the community on a regular basis to elucidate direction and next steps; thus, ensuring that the transformation in and with the community is/ was sustainable. These action/reflection spirals allowed the unique communities to discuss the findings/results and to start to think about what kinds of programs could be developed that would build on the strengths of the communities rather than the deficits. So when the most commonly identified risk factor in the four unique communities was the mis-use of tobacco, they were prepared to discuss the results with the community at large. This led to working with Elders and community members to provide a holistic, inclusive and participatory approach to developing an effective “Framework” for guiding local policy and action related to tobacco mis-use. The wisdom and guidance from Elders, helped community members to illuminate the contexts in which they lived and to develop ways of building on their own uniqueness and strengths. Collaboration with academic researchers and health care providers facilitated the construction of a “Framework” that reflected these unique strengths. CONTEXT

This chapter will describe two phases of the projects: the community-based surveys; and, the development of the Green Light Program. Community-based Participatory Research: Four Community Surveys Theoretical constructs. Community-based participatory research approaches are designed to improve health and well-being in communities and to minimize health disparities in general (Israel et al., 2005; Macaulay et al., 1999). Community-based participatory research is a partnership approach to research that equitably involves community members, organizational representatives and researchers in all aspects of the research process and in which all partners contribute expertise and share 208



decision-making and ownership (Israel et al., 1998; Israel et al., 2003). In addition to this, community-based participatory research is utilized to study and address community-identified issues through a collaborative and empowering actionoriented process that builds on strengths and assets of the community (Minkler et al., 2006; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006). Community-based research using participatory processes takes time, patience, energy and commitment. Building with and on the community’s aspirations enhances capacity at the levels of the individual, community and organization; and sustains the change made at all levels within the community – individual, community and organization. In this case, capacity is defined as strengthening people’s capacity to determine their own values and priorities and to organize themselves to act on these (Eade & Williams, 1995). Thus, building capacity is: the process of reflection, leadership, inspiration, adaptation and search for greater coherence between the purpose, governance and activities; and, fosters the building of communication: processes of negotiation, building relationships, conflict resolution and improving the ability of each of the partners to celebrate the diversity while building on strengths. In collaborative action research, the community members are considered to be experts in their lived experience and about their community (Fetterman & Wandersman, 2005). Transformative action research encompasses action research and transformative learning and requires high levels of participation, and facilitation (Ramsden, et al., 2003; Ramsden, Vilis & White, 2006). Transformative action research requires true collaboration where power and empowerment are shared horizontally; thus, researchers utilizing this method take direction from the community, which is reflected in the process, methods, results and interpretation (Ramsden et al., 2003). Learning and research are done together and are iterative, as new insights are implemented and gained (Ramsden et al., 2003). Practical considerations. Frequently, the academic researcher is invited into the communities in response to questions that are being asked or to help them consider options available to them related to the questions that they would like to systematically answer e.g. How could we go about collecting Métis specific health data? When developing a partnership with a community, it was critical that the academic researcher spend at least 12 months in the community with the community members participating in various projects and engaging in dialogue before any research was undertaken. The academic researcher often acts as a catalyst, confidante and a collaborator. In addition, the academic researcher should facilitate the building of bridges and subsequently work with the community to develop meaningful and valid processes that will answer their questions. Thus, the community and its members are an integral member of the research process from the development of the research question through data collection and participatory analysis to interpretation and knowledge 209



translation. With each of the community surveys, the academic researcher maintained the integrity of the process by ensuring the de-identified data were kept for both the community and the research team. As a result of active involvement/engagement, the community acquired a sense of ownership, skills were learned, capacities were built, individuals and organizations were empowered, and what was learned was applied within the community. The guiding values for each research endeavour were negotiated over time by the members of the research teams (community members, health care providers and academic researchers). The guiding values were and are: respect for ourselves and others; building trust in relationships; responsibility and accountability of the individual and the community; freedom of the individual; kindness and compassion; patience; humility and transparency. Methods leading to Results/Findings from the Community-based Surveys. Sampling was undertaken in two ways: random selection of addresses or purposive sampling (Patton, 2002). Purposive sampling is defined as a non-representative subset of some larger population, and is constructed to serve a very specific need or purpose which in this case was to select, information-rich cases that would illuminate the questions from the communities under study (Patton, 2002). Given the nature of these research endeavours, these research projects were reviewed for ethical considerations by the various communities and subsequently submitted and approved by the University of Saskatchewan’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board. Each of the four communities were engaged one at a time; thus, ensuring that the community perceived and felt that what they had to share with the Community Liaison Workers (community members who were engaged as part of the research team) was important and critical to the success of the endeavour. The orientation for the Community Liaison Workers was comprised of interviewing skills, data collection skills and facilitation skills which included transforming conflict (Government of Newfoundland & Labrador, 2006). West Winds Primary Health Centre (WWPHC), Saskatoon, SK This community-based survey was developed with the Presidents/Vice-Presidents of the six Community Associations in Saskatoon, community members, health care practitioners and academic researchers over a 12 month period from 2004-2005. Prior to the move from the Royal University Hospital to West Winds Primary Health Centre in 2006, the Department of Academic Family Medicine had a desire to develop evidence-informed programs that met the needs of the communities rather than the needs of the health care providers. These communities are diverse in that residents in the communities are: from lower and higher social economic status; new (Immigrants and Refugees) and established Canadians; First Nations and Métis; and, span the life continuum from babies to older adults.

210



A random selection of addresses was undertaken from the current listings at the time for the six communities that were obtained from the City of Saskatoon. Residents who either lived at one of the randomly selected single dwelling addresses (n = 100) or lived in one of the three randomly selected multiple dwellings in each community were invited to participate. An information letter was dropped off to the randomly selected addresses by a team of two Community Liaison Workers 48 hours prior to a face-to-face invitation being extended to the head of the household (18 years of age and older) to participate in this community-based participatory research endeavour. If the head of the household at the randomly selected address agreed to participate, oral consent was obtained prior to the interview. Consent was, however, viewed as an ongoing transactional process and, as such, the participants were encouraged to answer only those questions that they felt comfortable with; thus, ensuring that they played a collaborative role in the decision-making process regarding their participation. An example of one of the four surveys is attached as Appendix A. During data collection which took some 18 months, I met with the Community Liaison Workers every Monday evening with the exception of Easter and Christmas to debrief and share successes related to the data collection. This commitment both on the part of the Community Liaison Workers and the academic researcher (VRR) built a relationship that has and continues to withstand the many challenges faced when working in and with vulnerable populations. The response rate refers to the number of individuals who completed the interviews divided by the total number of people approached (completed, refusals, non-responders); thus, the response rate was 61% (444/725) (Ramsden, McKay, & Crowe, 2010). The ages of the participants ranged from 18-100 years with a mean age of 46 years. Of the participants, 64% (286/444) were females with an average age of 45 years and 36% (158/444) were males with an average age of 49 years (Ramsden, McKay, & Crowe, 2010). Regina Métis Sports and Culture Inc. (RMSC), Regina, SK Regina Métis Sports and Culture, Inc. (RMSC) was an urban-based Métis community organization that facilitated the linking of its members through social and community activities. The organization’s membership represented a broad cross-section of the Aboriginal (Métis specific) population in Regina. In 2005, Clifford LaRocque, President of RMSC and Karen LaRocque, Executive Director of RMSC began the process of engaging in community-based participatory research to address the paucity of Métis specific health data. RMSC’s mission was to provide programs and services to Métis and the broader Aboriginal population in Regina; however, in order to effectively address the mission, they needed access to relevant data that would support their applications for program and service development. RMSC felt that they needed to collect their own, base-line data to better understand the needs of the population being served.

211



In the fall of 2006, the academic researcher (VRR) began going to Regina every Friday over the course of 18 months to spend time in the community, share a meal and have many conversations. This resulted in the research team developing a survey which built upon the community-based survey designed and implemented at WWPHC. It was decided that all individuals who were members of RMSC and over the age of 18 years would be invited to participate in the process of exploring questions about: demographics, education, employment, health status, primary health care, tobacco mis-use, alcohol and drug use and chronic disease prevention and management. While many barriers and issues were identified by the participants, many strengths and assets were also highlighted. The response rate was 97 % (136/138) (Ramsden et al., 2008). The ages of the participants ranged from 18-88 years with a mean age of 39 years. Of the participants, 56% (76/136) were females with an average age of 38 years and 44% (60/136) were male with the average age of 40 years (Ramsden, et al., 2008). Sturgeon Lake First Nation (SLFN), Saskatchewan, Canada It was the desire of the research team to build a framework that would conjointly engage the community and academic partners in better understanding the social determinants of health within Sturgeon Lake First Nation. The information gleaned and the dialogue was designed to illuminate the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence health and well-being within Sturgeon Lake First Nation. As a result of a long term relationship that the academic researcher (VRR) had with members of Sturgeon Lake First Nation and after engagement with the community, the academic researcher wrote, submitted and secured a Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation New Investigator Award to undertake the aforementioned program of research. This community-based survey which evolved from the one designed and implemented at WWPHC, was negotiated by the community and academic partners over a period of 12 months. Individuals who were members of Sturgeon Lake First Nation and were 18 years of age and older were invited to participate in the community survey. There were 194 valid responses out of the 203 individuals invited to participate; thus, the Response Rate was 96 % (Ramsden, Bighead, et al., 2010). Of the participants, 57% (110/194) were women with an average age of 38 (n=92) years; and, 43% (84/194) were men with an average age of 40 (n=69) years. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan This community-based survey built upon the one designed and implemented with RMSC and was negotiated by the community and academic partners over a period of five months. Individuals who were members of Métis Nation – Saskatchewan in

212



a number of communities throughout the province of Saskatchewan were invited to participate in the community-based survey as Community Liaison Workers responsible for data collection. There were 1515 valid responses out of the 1669 individuals invited to participate; thus, the Response Rate was 91 %. To ensure that the data set met the criteria originally delineated, surveys with: incomplete data (n=22); dates of birth that resulted in the participant being less than 18 years of age (n=10); or, those that lived outside of Saskatchewan (n=21), were removed. There were also: missing surveys (n=33); duplicates (n=7); surveys submitted without responses marked as refused (n=33); and, surveys for which the identity of the individual was unclear (n=28) (Ramsden, McKay, Patrick, et al., 2010). The results of the MN-S community-based survey were very interesting in that they were similarly reflected in the Profile of Métis Health Status and Healthcare Utilization in Manitoba: A Population-Based Study (Martens et al., 2010). The results of the Manitoba study evolved from Hospitalization Data with an N=73, 016.

Figure 1. The inter-connectedness & integration of four community-based surveys.

213



Dialogue & community engagement. As analysis of the preliminary data began in each of the four communities, it became evident that tobacco mis-use was the most commonly identified modifiable risk factor evolving from all four of the communitybased surveys (Ramsden et al., 2008; Ramsden, McKay, & Crowe, 2010; Ramsden, Bighead et al., 2010; Ramsden, McKay, Patrick et al., 2010). Within the context of this work, tobacco mis-use is defined as non-traditional use of tobacco by First Nations and Métis peoples (Ramsden, et al., 2013).

Figure 2. Rates of tobacco mis-use in the four communities.

The rates of tobacco mis-use in these four unique communities in Saskatchewan were much higher than the reported Canadian rate in 2010 (17%). However, it is important to note that the target population for Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring

214



Survey (CTUMS) is all persons 15 years of age and older living in Canada, excluding residents of Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories, full-time residents of institutions and those living on-reserve. In addition, because CTUMS is a telephone survey that is done every six months, Canadians without telephones (land lines) are not included (Health Canada, 2010). The Development of the “Green Light Program” with the Communities Theoretical constructs. Tobacco is traditionally used by many First Nations and Métis people to: pray; give thanks to the Creator and Mother Earth; communicate with the spirits; purify the mind and heal the body; thus, respect for the traditional use of tobacco within cultures is extremely important (Health Canada, 2002). However, mis-use (or recreational use) of tobacco as defined by the communities places a very large number of adults and children in these populations at risk of developing chronic diseases such as asthma, heart disease and diabetes; as well as, reducing their quality of life and life expectancy. There is frequently a question about the validity of self-reported smoking status; however, Wong, Shields, Leatherdale, Malaison, and Hammond (2012) indicated that the differences between smoking prevalences based on self-report versus cotinine concentration were not significant for any of the age/sex groups. Correlation results indicated strong agreement between smoking status based on self-report and cotinine (r=0.90, p