Action research dissertation resources
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arhome.html
http://educ.queensu.ca/~russellt/howteach/arguide.htm#step1
Planning your Action Research Project
© 2001 Ian Hughes & Ray William.
Action research projects have twin goals to improve practice and generate
knowledge. The increase in knowledge is often (but not always) triggered by a
collaborative group (of professionals, community members, administrators or
whoever) who are puzzled about the effects (or lack of effect) of an element of
professional practice.
Action research is especially useful in situations where you are a member of a
group of people who want to improve some part of a health or welfare service.
If you are doing something in your work that has effects that puzzle or interest
you, or if you do not understand why you are not getting an effect you
expected, the action research may be the way to go.
Action research projects run through repeated cycles. Some action research
projects start off with fuzzy questions. The first action research cycle may
provide fuzzy answers that lead to less fuzzy questions, less fuzzy answers, and
so on, until later cycles are able to provide precise answers to specific
questions. Other action research projects may start off with quite well defined
questions, yielding answers that lead to improved services, new questions and
further improvements, in a spiral of continuous improvement.
It is possible to start an action research project at any point in the cycle (plan,
act, observe or reflect). A project may start because somebody reflects on
their observation that actions have not been as effective as they would like. In
a written document I have to start somewhere, so I start with the reflection
that precedes planning. It is important to note that in the real world you may
start at another point in the cycle.
Many research courses suggest that you start with a research question. Action
Researchers have to identify a practical aim as well as a research question. But
there are some preliminary steps.
Before you plan: Initial reflection.
Many projects start by defining the topic. One way to do this is to invite
stakeholders, including potential members of the action group, to an initial
reflection workshop. It may (or may not) be appropriate to distribute the
results of any preliminary situation analysis before the workshop.
Choose the best facilitator you have available to you. Start by welcoming
people to the workshop, and then invite them to introduce themselves, and say
why they are interested in the situation or the potential action research
project. Then make very brief comments to introduce the situation, and invite
each member to reflect on what they see as the main problem(s), what they
think needs to be improved (action aim) and what each thinks we need to find
out (research problem). Record these on poster paper.
Another way to get people thinking as they enter the room is to ask them to
draw a system representing the issue or problem of concern followed by
identifying components, drawing relationships, and looking for leverage in the
system; all in about 10 minutes. Soon, someone will ask, "What is leverage?"
Senge et al. (1996) define "leverage as the point or points in the system that
create the greatest potential impact, either positive or negative." Participants
debrief their diagrams by describing "leverages" or actions along with needed
research. This Action-Gram technique (William, 2001) encourages immediate
participation, relational thinking, and initial suggestions about actions within
the context of everyday systems that people already know.
You may decide on a different process that suits your project, but whatever
method, avoid getting into arguments or disputes. The aim of the initial
reflection is not to reach agreement or consensus, but to explore the
dimensions of the situation and learn how various people see it. Record
everyone’s comments in an equal way, valuing the contribution of each
participant. Provide contact details for people who may like to join an action
group.
Before you plan: Literature survey.
Start reading about your project as soon as possible, and continue your survey
of relevant literature throughout the project. It is especially useful to look for
reports of similar projects, or projects asking similar questions. These may
provide possible answers to your research question, and information about how
other people have tried to answer similar questions. Reading about other
people’s experiences can be very useful in avoiding mistakes. Look for
information content, and for guidelines for process and method.
Step 1: Start project notes.
Much of the work of action researchers concerns ordinary everyday events.
What turns everyday life into research is data, and what turns ordinary events
into data is recording. So, you have started research as soon as you start
recording what happens, and what you and others think about what happens.
There are various ways of recording, including a research diary, a project
journal, a project log, process and content records or a reflective journal.
Different styles suit different people for different projects. Whatever type of
project record you choose, keep notes so you can find them and they will make
sense to you months later. You should keep notes about:
What you observe (see or hear),
What happens, and what happens next,
What you think, guess, wonder about, or conclude,
What you feel,
What you plan or dream.
Keep these different kinds of notes under headings or descriptions, so that in
the future you will know the difference between what you actually saw, what
you were told about, and what you dreamed.
Later cycles.
When you plan second or later cycles check that the format for your project
notes and data collection are suitable for your purpose, and the best
available within the constraints of your project.
Step 2: Define the action group
Start talking about your rough ideas for an action research project with people
you know. Include people involved in the situation as colleagues, citizens,
clients, or in some other way. Start to get a feeling for what people see as the
problems, what puzzles them, what they don’t understand. Keep a record of
whom you talk to and what they say in your project notes.
Start to build a collaborative group of people who are willing to commit some
of their time, knowledge and expertise to the action research project. The
action group should include only people who are prepared to commit time and
energy to the project. (Some projects also have other identified groups of
stakeholders). Spend time building an effective action group. Action research
varies in the degree of participation by various stakeholders, but is almost
always conducted by an action group. It is very risky to attempt action research
without a group committed to action. This may be called an action group,
collaborative group, inquiry group, action research team, reference group
collaborative project team, action research group or by some other name.
If you have not already done so as part of your situation analysis, start to list
all the stakeholders in the situation, by name, role or category. Use the
categories and roles that apply in your situation. Here are some examples of
categories to get you started:
Category
Professionals
Community members
Service users
Role
Doctors
Nurses
Social Workers
Opinion leaders
Local business people
Clients
Families
Name
Later cycles.
Confirm membership of the action group for the next cycle. Invite new
members if there the probable benefits outweigh the disadvantages of
changing the membership of the collaborative group during the project.
Plan activities to support positive group dynamics.
Step 3: Start to map your action research project
Draw a rich picture, loop diagram, or Action-Gram as a way to explore
relationships, interactions, feedback, and emergent properties of systems
followed by a concept map, a flow diagram, a tree, or a fishbone diagram of
your proposed action research project. It is important to have input from the
action group members, so do this in a brainstorming session with your action
group. If this cannot be done, think how to get input from members of the
action group.
Use a format for the project map that is clear and understood by the members
of the action group. If your service has a house style, it may be sensible to use
it. The style of presentation should be appropriate to the expectations,
education and culture of the action group and other stakeholders. Initial
mapping should also consider techniques that achieve appropriate learning at
that stage. Initially, groups choose techniques that enhance divergent thinking
followed by analysis or methods that converge toward decisions. Relational
diagrams tend to express divergent thinking techniques while analytical
methods foster convergence.
Many participants express lack of confidence when drawing relational diagrams
the first time, yet nearly every group draws wonderful maps with just a bit of
encouragement and expectation. Beginning with relational diagrams and
keeping them in front of the action group as they learn makes systemic inquiry
nearly as functional as wholes rather than a sum of the parts. As learning
continues, subsequent mapping or diagramming often considers optimisation
strategies such as flows of organisational trees followed by using fishbones or
force fields that turn obstacles into actions.
Make the project map as clear and specific as you can on the basis of what you
know at this stage, and no more specific than that.
Later cycles
Map each cycle as part of the planning process. With each cycle, improve
the map so that it becomes a clearer and more precise description of what
you will do. If you start with a fuzzy map with lots of clouds or black boxes,
aim to specify the clouds and unpack the boxes in succeeding cycles. Always
keep these maps in front of the group.
Step 4: Write your action aim and research question.
Action research projects have twin aims, to change a social or professional
practice, and to increase knowledge. A successful plan must include a
statement of what we hope to change or improve, and what new knowledge we
hope to generate.
Often, action research is used when we know (at least in general terms) the
outcome we would like, but don’t know how to achieve it. If we can specify the
improvement in professional service we would like to see, and we are quite
sure how to make the improvement, then there is no need for action research.
But if we do not know how to improve, if we are not sure that the improvement
will be successful, if we think we know what will work, but lack certainty, then
action research can be very useful. In situations like this, the knowledge we
need is about how to improve an aspect of professional activity. That is, the
research question is derived from the action aim. In such situations the action
aim is to improve a service, and the research question is about how to improve
the service, but not all action research follows this pattern.
In some cases the action aim may derive from the research question. Action
research can provide case studies to throw light on theoretical questions, can
be exploratory studies leading to new lines research. A changed professional
practice or a social intervention can be designed to generate data relevant to a
theoretical question, for example, a question about processes of social change.
In all cases, however, in action research, the action aim and the research
question involve the same process.
Write down the action aim and the research question in two paragraphs. Make
each as clear ands specific as you are able to, but not more than that (avoid
false or misleading accuracy). Add a justification to each, which makes it clear
why you choose this aim and that question, and how the action aim and
research question are related.
Action research projects often are embedded within larger or more complex
systems. Thus, the twin aims mentioned above interact with other aims or
objectives. Mapping and keeping the map in front of the group during action
research helps groups consider consequences within the context of a dynamic
or functional system with multiple components that interact over time.
Later cycles
Keep to the same action aim and research question for as long as you can.
Change them only when emerging information leave you with no alternative.
The action aim and research question give overall direction to the project.
Change direction when it is necessary, but not otherwise.
Keep the map in front of the group to consider interactions while focused on
one action aim or research question at a time.
Step 5: List Planned changes
Describe each of the specific changes you plan to make in the situation,
explaining how each specific change relates to the action aim and/or research
question. While your action group will decide what changes are appropriate in
your project, Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) suggest that changes should be made
across three categories:
a. Language and discourse (what is said in the situation)
b. Activities and practices (what is done in the situation)
c. Social relationships and organisation (who says and does what to whom)
Step 6: Plan data collection
Describe how the project notes will be used to provide information useful in
reporting the project and answering the research question. Consider how
various data collection methods may contribute to answering the research
question.
In planning data collection it is useful to think backwards. Imagine the kind of
information you want to include in your final report. Ask how you would get
that information, what kind of data analysis will produce the results you are
looking for. Then ask what data is needed for that analysis, and how those data
can be collected in this project.
Describe how you will:
Collect the data that will count as evidence in answering the research
question.
Record what is said, including changes in language and discourse in the
situation.
Record what happens, including changes in practices and effects of practices.
Record social relationships, including changes in relationships and social
organisation.
Monitor the progress of the project, including changes in the action group and
overall situation.
Monitor the environment, including external changes that impact on the
project, action aim and research question.
Later cycles:
Note how well the data you are collecting addresses the research question.
Retain data collection methods for repeated observations over time.
Improve or change data collection methods and techniques to provide more
valid and reliable answers to the research question.
Step 7: Analysis of data.
Describe how the data you collect will be analysed to answer the research
question and contribute to the action aim. State what instruments, methods
and tools you plan to use. Be clear about the logical connections between the
data you collect, how you will process it, how it will be presented and
answering the research question.
While project notes and participant observations are widely used in action
research, almost any qualitative or quantitative method for collection and
analysis of data may be used, if appropriate to the situation and project. Refer
to other sources for information on data collection and analysis.
Later cycles
Ensure that the data and analysis of it contributes to answering the research
question. Modify data analysis and presentation only if necessary.
Step 8: Action planning.
List specific things that are to be done, with the person responsible for each
and a completion date. A form like the one below may be useful.
Action Plan
Project
Date
#
Action
Who
When
1
2
3
Later cycles
Make a new action plan for each cycle. File these as part of your project
notes.
Step 9: Write your action research plan.
The headings or sections you use may vary from those listed below. These are
provided as a guide to what to include.
1. Situation and concern:
Briefly describe the problem situation, and what concerns or worries the
members of the action group. Include a relational map or diagram for clarity.
2. Action aim and research question:
a. Describe the changes you plan to make. State the outcomes you hope to
achieve, and the linkages you believe exist between your planned action
and intended outcomes. Be a specific as you are able to be, and no
more specific.
b. Ask the research question, being as clear and specific as you can. State
why the answer to this question will be useful, what difference this
knowledge will make to the situation. Explain how the research question
is linked to the action aim.
3. Action group:
Describe the action group and it’s membership. Outline the commitment of the
action group, and why this is an appropriate group to work with. Describe the
composition and role of any other groups of stakeholders, and how the action
group will relate to them.
4. Planned changes:
Describe each of the specific changes you plan to make in the situation,
explaining how each specific change relates to the action aim and/or research
question.
5. Data collection:
Describe how you will collect the data that will count as evidence in answering
the research question.
6. Action plan
List specific actions, with who will do each, and when they will be done.
Later cycles
Revise the project plan in each cycle.
Before you act
There are some other tasks that must be completed before you start acting and
observing.
1. Ethical approval: It is essential to obtain approval from an institutional ethics
committee before undertaking any research involving humans. This includes
action research, even where all the participants and informants are coresearchers. For studies associated with a University this means obtaining
approval from the University ethics committee.
2. Informed consent of participants: All participants, informants, subjects, coresearchers must consent to the research, and, must be able to withdraw
consent for their participation in the project. Consent should be obtained, in
writing, except where there are valid reasons for verbal consent or implied
consent to be accepted. In all cases, participants must be fully informed about
the collection of data and the uses to which data may be put. Data may not be
collected without informed consent.
3. Potential for harm: Review your project plan to look for any potential harm
that may be caused by this research.
Finally, you are ready to start collecting data.
References
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The Action Research Planner. Geelong:
Deakin University.
This paper was revised on 8 May 2001.
Action Research: Comparison with the
concepts of ‘The Reflective
Practitioner’ and ‘Quality Assurance’.
© Regina Hatten, Donna Knapp and Ruth Salonga, 1997.
This article may be cited as:
Regina Hatten, R., D. Knapp and R. Salonga, (1997) 'Action Research:
Comparison with the concepts of ‘The Reflective Practitioner’ and ‘Quality
Assurance’, in I. Hughes (ed) Action Research Electronic Reader, The University of Sydney,
available http://www.fhs.usyd.edu.au/arow/o/m01/rdr.htm (download date 00.00.0000)
Introduction
As a group of post graduate students involved in Action Research as an elective
within a Master of Health Science Education degree, we were surprised by
commonalities observed between AR and two other concepts with which we
have had previous experience. Exposure to the concept of ‘The Reflective
Practitioner’, as identified by Schon, occurred within the course work
component of our Master in Health Science Education degree. While the
concept of Quality Assurance/Total Quality Management was identified within
our organisational settings.
Through group discussion, we subsequently decided that exploration of the
three concepts identified would assist us to clarify and compare them. We
decided that documentation of our findings in an electronic publication would
provide a concise form of information regarding these issues for others who are
new to this field.
What is Action Research (AR)?
Action research (AR) is a non-traditional form of research which is often
community-based and carried out by a practitioner in the field (Stringer, 1996,
p.9). The linking of the terms ‘action' and ‘research' highlight the essential
feature of this approach, which involves the testing out of ideas in practice as
a means of improvement in social conditions and increasing knowledge (Kemmis
& McTaggert, 1988, p.6).
AR, as described by Lewin, proceeds in a spiral of steps composed of planning,
action and an evaluation of the result of the action. The AR process begins with
a general idea that an improvement or change in the practitioner's area of work
is desirable. A group then forms to clarify the mutual concern which has been
identified. The group makes the decision to work together and focus its
improvement strategies on the 'thematic concern' (Hart & Bond, 1995, p.54;
Kemmis & McTaggert, 1988, p.8-9).
In the AR spiral, (refer to Figure 1) group members:
1. develop a plan of critically informed action to improve current
practice. The plan must be flexible to allow adaptation for
unforeseen effects or constraints;
2. The group members act to implement the plan which must be
deliberate and controlled;
3. This action is observed to collect evidence which allows
thorough evaluation. The observation must be planned and a
journal may be used for recording purposes. The action process
and its effects within the context of the situation should be
observed individually or collectively;
4. Reflection of the action recorded during observation is usually
aided by discussion among the group members. Group reflection
can lead to a reconstruction of the meaning of the social
situation and provides a basis for further planning of critically
informed action, thereby continuing the cycle. These steps are
carried out in a more careful, systematic and rigorous way than
that which usually occurs in daily practice (Kemmis & McTaggert,
1988, pp.10-14; Zuber-Skerritt, 1992, p.16).
Figure 1 - The Action Research Spiral
(after Zuber-Skerrit, 1995, p.13)
The upward direction of the spiral IN Figure 1 indicates a continuous
improvement of practice and an extension of personal and professional
knowledge (Zuber-Skerrit, 1995, p.13).
Characteristics of Action Research
There are a number of characteristics which distinguish AR from other forms of
research. These include: collaboration between researcher and practitioner;
solution of practical problems, change in practice; theory development and
publicising the results of the inquiry (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott, 1993; ZuberSkerritt, 1992, p.14).
Collaboration
The focus of collaboration involves interaction between a researcher or
research team and a practitioner or group of practitioners. The ‘practitioners'
are individuals who know the field or workplace from an internal perspective
regarding the history of the workplace development, knowledge of how others
in the setting expect things to be done and knowing how things are usually
done. The ‘researcher' is an outsider who has expertise in theory and research
but limited knowledge regarding the local setting. The collaboration between
the two parties can vary from periodic to continuous collaboration throughout
the study (Hart & Bond, 1995, p.55; Holter & Schwartz-Barcott, 1993).
The researcher may not be an outside expert and is often viewed as a ‘coworker' doing research with and for the practitioners. This group may be
broadened to directly involve as many people as possible who will be affected
by the practices concerned (Kemmis & McTaggert, 1988, p.23; Zuber-Skerritt,
1992, p.13).
Problem-solving
The primary purpose of AR is as a tool for solving practical problems
experienced by people in their professional, community or private lives
(Stringer, 1996, p.11). The problem is defined in relation to a specific situation
and setting determined by the group, community or organisation. A variety of
data collection methods can be used to identify the problem, eg. observation,
interviews, questionnaires (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott, 1993; Stringer, 1996, p.
9).
Change in Practice
The results and insights gained from the AR should not only be of theoretical
importance but also lead to practical improvements in the problem areas
identified (Zuber-Skerritt, 1992, p. 12). The change in practice will depend
upon the nature of the problem identified (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott, 1993).
Theory Development
An important goal of AR is that the results assist the researcher to develop new
theories or expand existing scientific theories ( Holter & Schwartz-Barcott,
1993). Through the process of AR, practitioners are able to develop a reasoned
justification for their work. The evidence gathered and the critical reflection
which occurs help create a ‘developed, tested and critically-examined
rationale' for the practitioner's area of practice (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988,
p.25).
Public results
The theories and solutions which are produced from the AR should be made
public to the other participants and also to the wider community who may have
an interest in that work setting or situation (Zuber-Skerritt, 1992, p.14).
The characteristics of AR are neatly summarised in the CRASP model developed
by Zuber-Skerritt.
Action research is:
Critical collaborative enquiry by
Reflective practitioners being
Accountable and making the results of their enquiry public,
Self-evaluating their practice and engaged in
Participative problem-solving and continuing professional development (ZuberSkerritt 1992, p.15).
Types of Action Research
There are three main types of AR - technical, practical and emancipatory.
Technical
The goal of this type of AR is the testing of an intervention based on a prespecified theoretical framework. The researcher is questioning whether the
selected intervention can be applied in a practical setting (Holter & SchwartzBarcott, 1993). The researcher acts as an outside expert who aims to gain the
practitioner's interest in the research, and agreement to assist in the
implementation of the intervention (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott, 1993; Kemmis
& McTaggart, 1988, p.12).
Practical
This type of AR involves the researcher and practitioner coming together in
order to identify potential problems, underlying causes and possible solutions
or interventions. The researcher encourages participation and self-reflection of
the practitioner (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott, 1993; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988,
p.12).
Emancipatory
This type of AR involves all participants equally with no hierarchy existing
between the researcher and practitioner. The researcher aims to decrease the
distance between the actual problems identified by the practitioner and the
theory used to explain and resolve the problems. The researcher also facilitates
reflective discussion with the practitioner to identify underlying problems and
assumptions. This assists the researcher to become a collaborative member of
the group (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott, 1993; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988, p.12).
In conclusion, AR is an alternative social science research approach which aims
to link theory and practice in solving practical problems for practitioners in the
field.
What is ‘The Reflective Practitioner’?
Donald Schon has provided an individual, self-directed, experience-based
professional learning and developmental process for the practitioner with the
concept of the reflective practitioner. These practitioners have incorporated
into their repertoire of skills, the art of transformative learning through
reflection (Schon, 1991; Mezirow, 1991).
This concept represents Schon’s interpretation of the developmental path and
characteristic of professional expertise, which had previously been defined by
using the traditional 'technocratic model' as a paradigm (Bines, 1992, p.13).
The use of the technocratic model developed from a belief that professional
problem-solving can be mastered singularly through the habitualised and
rigorous application of a proven discipline of knowledge, theories and
techniques.
To illustrate the processes described in The Reflective Practitioner several
concepts have been reviewed. These concepts include Argyris and Schon’s
(1974) ‘Single and double loop learning’; Montgomery’s (1993) ‘Meta model for
learning’ and ‘Reflective learning process model’. The following diagram is an
adaptation of these models/concepts developed by Hatten (1997).
Figure 2 - Processes within ‘The Reflective Practitioner’
(diagram devised by R. Hatten, 1997)
The following information can be clarified by reference to Figure 2. Argyris
and Schon (1974, p.18) refer to the ready reliance on a static frame of
reference as 'single loop learning' (1). In a static society in which social systems
remain constant, knowledge is relatively stable and dilemmas in life are mostly
predictable. Solving problems is mostly patterned on previous experience and
proven solutions. In a fast changing society in which the direction for change
cannot be predicted, the ability to critically analyse, make informed
judgements and direct actions, would be very much valued.
This ability is the result of the combination of experience, propositional
knowledge, tacit knowledge or know how, critical thinking and other kinds of
process and intuitive knowledge which have been developed through previous
reflections (Boud, Cohen & Walker, 1993). An understanding of the nature of
the reflective practitioner may help to illuminate the skills needed for
transformative or double loop learning (Mezirow, 1991; Argyris & Schon, 1974).
Reflection (2) is the processing of the experience and re-evaluation of
perceptions, which then become the basis of transformed or new knowledge,
and decisions on further action (Boud and Walker, 1991). Informed, directed
and committed action is often referred to as 'praxis' (3) (Brookfield, 1987, p.28;
Kemmis, 1985, p.141). Kemmis (1985, p.141) argues that 'praxis' is 'the most
eloquent and socially significant form of human action', which forms the basis
of the social order. The truly ‘reflective practitioner’ (Schon, 1991) actively
participates in this moulding of the social order through ‘praxis’, but not all
professionals embrace the same level of reflective activity and commitment to
action. The questioning and change in frames of reference used to learn has
been named 'double loop learning' (4) by Argyris and Schon (1974, p.19).
Schon (1991) claims that this skill is essential to survival in a professional world
in which both ends of the theory-practice gap are changing rapidly. Knowledge
is evolving and exploding, and the context of practice is constantly being
modified. Even expectations of society on the outcomes of professional
expertise are continually being revised and the basis of this expertise is the
ability to solve unique problems.
Schon’s (1991) basic argument is that problems do not present as neat packages
of itemised elements to which the application of a series of logical yes/no
questions is sufficient to produce a solution. Problems (5) are 'problematic
situations which are puzzling, troubling and uncertain' and which can be
described as dilemmas (Schon, 1991, p.40). They can be constantly transformed
so that the means and the ends are always in shadows. The most important
process to apply is 'Problem setting (6) ….. in which, interactively, we name
the things to which we will attend and frame the context in which we will
attend to them' (Schon, 1991, p.40).
This knowing what to name and frame is often implicit in our actions and often
forms a large part of professional expertise. This expertise is composed of
many pieces of information which, if explicit, can overwhelm the capacity of
the conscious mind (Schon, 1991, p.49). Schon (1991, p.50) refers to tacit
knowledge as knowing-in-action, which will remain implicit unless effort is
expended to make it explicit.
This reflection-in-action is usually triggered by some ‘disorientating dilemma’
within professional actions which are habitually guided by tacit knowledge. The
disorientation (7) is faced when these actions do not produce the usual
expected results (ie. defined by previous experience) and problem setting and
reflection are needed to bring about a paradigm shift (8) which then
determines the next action (9) (Mezirow, 1991, p.56).
The effort made through reflection on this knowing-in-action , whether on the
subject or his or her own actions or knowing, creates understandings which are
made explicit, reprocessed and reinforced or modified. Schon claims that the
'art' of expertise has at its core, the reflection-in-action (10) during these
moments (Schon, 1991, p.50).
The reflection-in-action is dependent on the 'action-present' when action is
possible within the time frame of the reflection (Schon, 1991, p.62).
Reflection-on-action (11) occurs when post mortems are carried out on
previous actions at anytime after the experience has passed (Schon, 1991,
p.276).
The objects of the reflection are multiple and varied, depending on the context
and the stakeholders. In essence, the reflective practitioner is the researcher
who is constructing a new theory, testing of which may help to find a solution
for a unique case, but the theory construction is not separate to the action.
The initial inquiry is triggered by a problem which is initially set according to
the observation at that moment. Comparison of this problem frame with
knowing-in-action produces new phenomena or reframing of the initial
problem. Awareness of feedback from the milieu stimulates reflection, which
causes the individual to continue to reframe, experiment, transform knowledge
schema and create new insights. This cycle is on-going, and can be indefinite
thereby ‘praxis’ occurs through a paradigm shift (Schon, 1991, p.268).
From another perspective, the inquirer uses an existing repertoire of
knowledge, reflects on similarities and differences, forms new hypotheses,
tests shapes, as well as probing the situation. A 'generative metaphor' results
from the processes, which is then used as the basis of the next cycle. Schon
coined 'generative metaphor' to describe the identification of similarities in
concepts which appear to be very different initially (Schon, 1991, p.183).
These metaphors are then used to link generated ideas when similarities
become obvious.
Throughout this process, some constants (12) are necessary to provide an
overarching theory, as a stance for reflection-in-action which can become an
ethic for inquiry (Schon, 1991, p.164). These constants give form to the process
but also may cause limits to be set for reflective thinking (Schon, 1991, p.275).
These are the frames of reference we all use to guide our lives. The circularity
of this issue is not fully explored by Schon, and neither is the issue of whether
actions are limited by the act of reflection itself.
Schon (1991) suggests that a paradigm shift is badly needed to turn mindsets
away from the technical rationality of conventional professional education and
practice, toward a system of reflective learning within all professional actions.
Effectiveness of reflection is often dependent upon the generic skills related to
an awareness of the moment, the ability to exclude other thoughts, and
continuity of inquiry.
This 'continuity of inquiry entails a continual interweaving of thinking and
doing' and therefore must be simultaneously developed with the generic skills
(Schon, 1991, p.280). Schon (1991) suggests these generic skills are often
neglected. This process demands a repertoire of sophisticated skills which can
always be improved with learning from experience through reflection.
What is Quality Assurance?
Background
Through recent history, both in health care and industrial settings, the phrases
of Total Quality Management (TQM), Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) and
Quality Assurance (QA) have been heard. There is a general misconception that
these terms are synonymous. This is predominantly true for TQM & CQI, but is
not so for QA (Al-Assaf and Schmele, 1993, p. 70).
Examples of Quality Assurance in Health Care can be identified in midnineteenth century England. Florence Nightingale served as a nurse during the
Crimean War and she was able to make a positive correlation between
adequate wound care and a lower mortality rate in soldiers (Al-Assaf and
Schmele, 1993, p. 4). Further developments have occurred over time, driven
primarily by the impacts of ‘reduced resources’ (ie. State Government cutbacks and fewer people joining private health funds); and the information
needs of a more educated group of patients (Thornber, 1992, p. 56). These
further developments have required health care organisations to expand
previous concepts of quality assurance to include leadership, and the
organisation’s culture as components which have a significant bearing on the
outcomes of quality (Koch, 1991, p. 1). Subsequently the practices of TQM
were adopted.
Definitions
TQM can be defined as a 'management philosophy which seeks continuous
improvement in performance of the processes, products and services. The
emphasis is on understanding variation, measurement, the role of the customer
and involvement of the employees at all levels of an organisation in pursuit of
improvement' (The Australian Council of Health Care Standards, 1992, p. 6).
Many people have provided definitions for QA. For the purposes of this
publication it will be defined as the 'planned and systematic approach to
monitoring and assessing the care provided, or the service being delivered,
which identifies opportunities for improvement and provides a mechanism
through which action is taken to make and maintain these improvements' (The
Australian Council of Health Care Standards, 1988, p. 5).
Essentially the difference between TQM and QA is that TQM is considered a
management philosophy and as such, has a broader focus. QA is more focused
on the analysis and correction or remediation of an identified problem area.
Subsequently, the outcome of QA is more concerned with problem definition
and resolution, or the development of standards. TQM, however, is considered
to be 'a way to manage the many processes which ensure these quality issues
pervade and infiltrate every aspect of an organization to improve its
effectiveness and competitiveness and ability to flexibly adapt to new
conditions' (Koch, 1991, p. 2).
Rationale for selection of comparison model
There are many models which describe QA, TQM & CQI. In order to enable
sufficient detailed comparison, only one framework or model will be chosen.
In an effort to maintain equity within the cycles involved in AR, it was decided
that the model of QA should be compared. The rationale for this being that QA,
like AR, can be considered a tool in a broader context, eg. AR can be a tool in a
research method, and QA can be used as a tool within CQI/TQM (Green, 1991).
In addition, it was the similarity of the core processes which generated the
authors’ perceptions that these concepts could be similar.
Model of TQM
A brief illustration of how TQM needs to be a combination between
management, systems and workers is given by Oakland (1989).
Figure 3. The TQM Model
(after Oakland, 1989, cited in Koch, 1991, p. 3)
According to Thornber (1991, p. 58), the ten key elements of the TQM model
include:
1. Quality being defined 'in terms of customer perceptions of both the
content and delivery of the service;
2. Analyses systems for errors and variations rather than putting the blame
on the people;
3. Develops long-term partnerships with external and internal suppliers
and service partners;
4. Uses accurate data to analyse processes and to measure system
improvement;
5. Involves the staff who do the work, in system analysis and improvement;
6. Sets up effective, collaborative meetings as the basis of teamwork;
7. Trains supervisors and managers in leading the on-going improvement
process;
8. Engages staff in setting targets and ensures that results are fed back;
9. Highlights the need for senior executives to plan strategically for the
implementation of improvement; and
10. Achieves long-term improvement through small-step incremental
improvement.'
Models of QA
Dr Edward Demming is credited to be the ‘father’ of the contemporary TQM
systems (Al-Assaf & Schmele, 1993, p. 6; Anderson, 1993, p. 18). Demming
devised a simple framework which could be used in QA because he
acknowledged that TQM could become unfocused. The cycle primarily
incorporates Plan, Do, Check, and Act as its format (see Figure 4).
Figure 4 - The PDCA Cycle
(Adapted from Murdock, 1991, p. 73)
The stages include the following components:
Plan
~ formulating a vision/mission,
~ predicting how people and systems will perform,
~ determining what data is necessary to describe the performance of a
system or a process;
Do
~ testing ideas and proposed changes on a trial basis;
Check
~ evaluation of the results from the ‘Do’ stage;
Act
~ incorporate information learnt from the trials within the ‘Do’ stage.
(Murdock, 1991, p. 73)
Since the development of Demming’s PDCA model, the need for development in
QA has required further models to be developed. The current QA models are
consistent with seven key elements (as highlighted by italics in the previously
given definition).
Organisational Requirements
For QA to work within any organisation, there are two basic requirements.
Firstly, QA projects need to be Planned. This planning should encourage the
workers who are involved in the tasks to be active in the quality cycle.
Preferably QA projects should also be organised in a planned manner across the
organisation (Koch, 1991).
Secondly, the organisation ensures that there is a system which assists in
maintaining the continuity of QA. Systematic refers to both the process and
time-frames used. Systems which are set up to ensure that QA is regularly
undertaken and the plans to carry out QA are ongoing, would be related to
time-frame. A system which is set up to ensure that QA goes through a logical
step-by-step process, involves people who are core to the issue being assessed.
This requires that communication occurs in a set manner for it to be effective
and would be one where the process is systematic.
Phases of the QA cycle
Monitoring - This term refers to 'any systematic, ongoing process of collecting
information on clinical and non-clinical performance. It is in this phase of the
QA cycle that topics for review are identified, and subsequently monitored'
(Anderson, 1993, p. 5). This phase is also known as the ‘data collection’ phase
because of the emphasis on collection of information.
There are two categories for topics being reviewed. These are:
a) an area of concern which has already been identified; and
b) an aspect of service delivery or care which is important. This second area
encompasses the monitoring of an issue for maintenance of a standard, eg.
adherence to staff annual education on fire safety.
Information which is collected in the Monitoring phases is analysed and
interpreted. This phase of the QA cycle is known as Assessing. It is important to
identify trends from data collected which indicate areas of deviation from an
acceptable standard. Organisations develop and implement systems to collect
the data, but fail to identify the trends, which suggest exploration of the
associated area is required. Anderson (1993, p. 5) identifies this phase as the
area where many organisations ‘fail’.
From the analysis of data and information, plans to modify the practice or
system are designed. These plans are then implemented in the Action phase.
Opportunities for improvement - It is important to realise that in QA it is not
always ‘problems’ which are the focus of the program. QA also intends that an
organisation can be pro-active. This means that QA can be carried out on an
area which is identified as an ‘opportunity for improvement’ (The Australian
Council of Health Care Standards, 1988, p. 5), eg. refining an existing system or
identifying a potential problem. This would be done in order to improve the
systems which are already in place.
Follow up or Evaluation - According to Anderson (1993, p. 5) this phase of the
QA cycle represents the Assurance component within QA.
The aim of ‘follow up’ is to identify whether a change occurred after
implementation of the Action and in the expected manner, ie. did the resultant
modification occur toward the trend that is desired, rather than away from it.
For validity, it is important to ascertain that the change which occurred after
implementation of the Action was as a result of the Action rather than of any
other variable.
The Evaluation phase is intended to check the quality of the outcome of the
actions involved. Evaluation, although part of the phase of follow up, has a
distinctive meaning as it 'involves a review of the actions taken to ensure that
they were appropriate. The desired result of this evaluation is to show that the
problem or concern was resolved or reduced to an acceptable level' (Anderson,
1993, p. 5). Where it is deemed that problems/concerns are resolved or
reduced to an acceptable level, the outcome would be stated as satisfactory.
Figure 5 - The QA Cycle
(after Anderson, 1993. p. 6)
Feedback - should be occurring throughout the entire cycle. Communication
between the people involved and affected is necessary both to maintain drive
within QA, and to review the effects of activities and plans (The Australian
Council on Healthcare Standards, 1988, p. 5). Additionally, feedback regarding
the proposed and implemented changes, is needed for system changes or
concerns to be expressed. The proposal may cause potential difficulties which
are not identified by the QA team. But where effective feedback is occurring,
others who will have to implement the changes may be able to identify these
difficulties. This is so that they can be addressed prior to implementation.
Benchmarking and Standards
The expanded cycle of QA identifies how the QA model can be used to establish
standards and/or benchmarks. Figure 6 visually represents the possible options
available, where the outcome of a QA cycle is satisfactory. When a follow up or
evaluation phase within a cycle of QA identifies that an acceptable level of
resolution has been achieved, a second modified cycle can be commenced. The
purpose of this second cycle is to establish a set of criteria in order to define or
set a benchmark or standard. Once these criteria have been established, the
modified cycle continues in a similar manner to the original QA cycle. A
Monitoring phase occurs, where data is gathered to identify that the
benchmark is being met, then assessment of the data occurs. If analysis of the
data identifies that the defined benchmark is not being met (or is
unsatisfactory), then the cycle returns to the initial QA cycle. The purpose of
the return to the initial cycle is to establish where the problems are occurring
and allow for resolution. In the event that analysis of the data shows that the
benchmark is being met the modified cycle continues.
Figure 6 - The Expanded QA Cycle
(after Anderson & Noyce, 1991, p. 32)
Similarities and Differences in the Characteristics of
Action Research (AR) and ‘The Reflective
Practitioner’ (RP)
Prerequisites
AR: Since it involves a group of people, only requires that some of these people
have this ability. The others can learn during the process.
RP: Requires that a practitioner has the skills and abilities to engage in
reflection on their own practice.
Trigger Point
AR: The trigger point for AR involves a group of people who have identified an
area of common concern.
RP: This involves only one individual identifying a disorientating dilemma.
Planning
AR: Differing levels of tacit knowledge in the group members dictate the
nature of the negotiation process which occurs in the development of the plan
of action.
RP: This does not need to occur within the RP cycle.
Both: Tacit knowledge impacts on the outcome of the negotiation process..
Example: An analogy to describe the differences in negotiation patterns can be
drawn from the differences between decision making as a single person and as
a married couple. The single person is able to make personal decisions without
conferring with another person, however in the marriage relationship partners
need to confer to determine the impact and negotiate possible prior to
selecting a solution.
AR: In the AR team, it is not essential that all participants have a well
developed level of professional tacit knowledge, however some members need
to have this for the group to function. Also all members bring tacit knowledge
developed from personal life experiences to the AR process.
RP: Requires the individual to have a well developed level of professional tacit
knowledge (although this may not be at a conscious level) to engage in a
reflective process.
Feedback
AR: Feedback occurs in all phases of the AR spiral, however is most
predominate in the reflection component.
RP: Feedback is most explicit during critical analysis of the individual’s frame
of reference. ie. during double-loop learning
Both: AR and RP use both reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action to
enhance the level of feedback generated either within the group or by an
individual practitioner.
Time frames
AR: Requires increased time for consensus to be reached within the group and
for the process/plan of action to be made explicit.
RP: The process of developing a plan of action can occur in a very short period
of time as it occurs internal to the practitioner, and as such consensus is not an
issue. Additionally the RP process may never become explicit.
Benefits / Outcomes
AR: This process improves an external condition (ie work practice/conditions
etc.) however may not contribute to the development of the individual
practitioner.
RP: Engagement in the double-loop learning cycle assists in developing the
professional’s expertise (eg assist to refine/develop clinical reasoning etc.).
General Comments
AR: The process of AR operates on a collaborative group basis.
RP: Operates on an individual basis.
AR: The focus may be on or around any issue and tends to be broad due to
group input.
RP: The focus in RP is primarily practice based and narrow, due to the
individual basis of the process.
Similarities and Differences of Action Research (AR)
and Quality Assurance (QA)
Trigger Point
AR: The trigger point is a mutual concern identified by a social group. The
concern can be fuzzy and indefinite and may be modified throughout the cycle
so that a beginning problem can become a very different problem at the end.
QA: The problem is always clearly defined and identified as a specific issue and
remains the focus throughout the process.
Problem Identification
AR: The identification of the problem can either occur from within the group or
a group may be persuaded by an external source to participate in an AR
project.
QA: A problem can are externally imposed or internally identified.
Participation in a QA project may not be voluntary and consensus is not a
prerequisite.
Planning
AR: The next step is planning critically informed action.
QA: The next step involves monitoring and collecting data.
Feedback
QA: Feedback is an integral part of the whole concept as it must occur during
each phase of the QA cycle. The primary focus of reflection during QA is on the
action which has already occurred. The feedback mechanisms provide input
into the process of reflection-in-action.
AR: Feedback may also occur in all phases of the AR spiral however this
feedback tends to be implicit. Feedback can become explicit in the reflect
component of the AR spiral.
Outcomes
QA: The outcomes from a QA project can either demonstrate an improvement
in benchmarking of standards or an improvement in the quality of a service. QA
tends to result in improvement in standard operating procedures within an
organisation.
AR: The results of an AR project contribute to the development of new theories
or can expand existing theories. Outcomes can provide the practitioner with a
justified foundation for their methodologies. Generally outcomes from AR
result predominantly in improvements in working and social conditions for the
group members.
Overall comment
AR: The AR spiral implies that action and knowledge development must occur
otherwise it cannot be considered a successful action research project.
QA: The cycles can remain static over time and not be acted on. They can be
suspended at any stage and rejuvenated at a later time.
Both: In general, QA has a much more rigid structure for project completion as
opposed to AR which is flexible and allows for continuous revision.
Use of Reflective Practitioner and Quality Assurance
within Action Research
Initially our thoughts regarding the three concepts were that if you combined
QA and RP, the resultant process would be AR. From combined experience, we
considered that in comparison to AR, the element lacking in QA was reflection
or a formalised reflective component. RP however, appeared to lack the
participatory and active components available in QA. Through combining
elements of the QA and RP cycles, the missing elements would be filled and it
was felt that this would produce a similar process to AR.
Further exploration and reflection have led us to conclude that, although our
initial thoughts had merit, there were other issues which had not been fully
understood or included in our considerations.
We tried to equate the various steps of the processes within each of the cycles,
only to discover (as our comparisons suggest) that they are different. This was
particularly apparent in the areas of ‘depth of processing’ and ‘context of use’.
On several occasions, the group explored how the different cycles could fit into
each other in order to enhance the final outcome, without changing the core
intent of each of the processes.
The group found that RP could be used at the reflection stage of AR to enhance
the possible outcome. Considering that not all practitioners have developed the
skills necessary to engage in RP, participants in the AR process may be at
differing levels of this skill development. This could invariably lead to
variations of the depth and influence that RP has on the AR process.
QA also did not fit snugly into the AR framework. QA could be used to
supplement the ‘plan’ stage as an external quality control measure and would
feed back into the ‘act’ stage. QA would not enhance the overall AR process if
it was not present. QA was perceived to be more of a stand-alone mechanism
which could contribute to the quality of the process. This was achieved by
maintaining the quality control when combined with any individual stage. It
was felt by the group that this may become more of a barrier to the flow of
discovery and interpretation in the AR process than an assistance.
Summary / Conclusion
Discovering the boundaries of QA and RP has allowed the authors to clarify
boundaries in the AR process, and thus become more familiar with what the
true nature of Action Research could be.
The major similarities between the three cycles of AR, RP and QA were:
the cyclical nature of the processes;
the basic functions of the stages of the cycles;
all cycles involved a combination of action and review/reflection on this
action to clarify the initial concern/dilemma identified;
each concept was used to address areas of concern/problems identified
by either an individual or group;
the overarching principle is exploration and solution of the initial
concern/problem
Major differences between the three cycles of AR, RP and QA were:
Context of the processes: Overall there are differences in the nature of the
context in which each concept is situated.
AR being socially oriented intends that the outcomes will be evidenced
explicitly ie. through changes in social situations, systems and social
conditions.
RP is internal to the practitioner and evidence for the outcome may be
implied or explicit (ie. Seen through changes in learning, practice, or
systems).
QA while being situation specific intends that the outcomes will be
related to the identified problem, they may be implicit but are more
likely to be explicit. ie. changes to the causative agent, system or
educative to contributing members of the process.
Isolation of the RP process as opposed to the necessity of collaboration
and interaction in the AR process.
Interaction level: Differences between working individually or as a
group are highlighted when this aspect of the three concepts are
considered.
AR: must be collaborative in orientation. Negotiation to determine both
the area of concern and the plan of action is unavoidable.
RP: due to the individual nature of the process negotiation is
unnecessary.
QA: can be group or individually based. This impacts on the level of
negotiation required.
Degree of complexity involved in the process: The complexity in
implementation of each concept is influenced by the content and/or the
process.
AR: The stages in the cycle are defined, however as the content of AR
can tend to be ‘fuzzy’ and abstract in nature, the cycle can become
complex.
RP: The depth of internal involvement in the process by necessity is
complex due to the double-loop learning requirement.
QA: Generally the cycle is less complex due to the process being clearly
defined and the content concrete.
Overall AR, RP and QA present as cyclic processes with differing levels of
involvement and complexity within the stages. Each would be selected when
scenarios require a particular outcome. AR would be selected in preference to
RP or QA when a social question or problem needs to be solved. RP would be
used to refine the individual’s expertise in practice. And QA would be selected
when the issue of concern was to the quality of outcome.
Questions for Further Inquiry
It would be interesting to:
1. Explore the outcomes of applying each concept to the same problem to
determine if the outcomes would be different given the concept used.
2. Use RP and QA within the AR spiral, and determine if the outcomes of AR are
significantly improved.
3. Explore the level of conscious and subconscious engagement of participants at
various stages of each concept, and how these interactions affect the outcome
of each concept, especially for AR.
References
Argyris, C., & Schon, D.A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Al-Assaf, A.F., & Schmele, J.A. (1993). The textbook of Total Quality in
Healthcare. Florida: St. Lucie Press, Incorporated.
Anderson, B. (Ed.) (1993). Quality Assurance for Occupational Therapists: A
Resource Kit. Zetland, Australia: The Australian Council of Healthcare
Standards.
Anderson, B., & Noyce, J.A. (1991). Clinical Indicators and their role in Quality
Management. In B. Anderson (Ed.) (1993). Quality Assurance for Occupational
Therapists: A Resource Kit. (pp. 32 - 37). Zetland, Australia: The Australian
Council of Healthcare Standards.
Bines, H. (1992). Issues in Course Design. In H. Bines & D. Watson. (Eds.)
Developing Professional Education. (pp. 11 - 27). Buckingham: SRHE & Open
University Press.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.) (1993). Using Experience for Learning.
Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press.
Boud, D., Keogh, R.., & Walker, D. (Eds). (1985). Reflection: Turning
Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1991). Experience and Learning Reflection at Work.
Melbourne: Deakin University.
Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to
Learn. Milton Keynes: Open University Press
Green, D. (1991). 'Quality Improvement versus Quality Assurance?' Topics in
Health Records Management, 11, 58 - 70.
Hart, E. & Bond, M. (1995). Action Research for Health & Social Care: A Guide
to Practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hatten, R.A. (1997). Guidelines for Effectiveness in Continuing Professional
Education. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Sydney, New South
Wales, Australia.
Holter, I.M., & Schwartz-Barcott, D. (1993). Action research: What is it? How
has it been used and how can it be used in nursing? Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 18, 298 - 304.
Kemmis, S. (1985). Action Research and the Politics of Reflection. In D. Boud,
R. Keogh & D. Walker. (Eds). Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning.(pp.
139 -163). London: Kogan Page.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.) (1988). The Action Research Planner.
Melbourne: Deakin University.
Koch, H.C.H. (1991). Total Quality Management in Health Care. Essex:
Longman Group.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. USA: JosseyBass.
Montgomery, J.R. (1993, August). Reflection, A Meta-Model for Learning, and a
Proposal to Improve the Quality of University Teaching. Paper presented at the
faculty seminar on Reflection and Improving the Quality of University Teaching
and Learning.
Oakland, J. (1989). TQM. Oxford: Heinemann. Cited in H.C.H. Koch, (1991).
Total Quality Management in Health Care. (p.3) Essex: Longman Group.
Schon, D. (1991). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in
Action. Avebury: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Stringer, E.T. (1996). Action Research - A Handbook for Practitioners. London:
SAGE publications.
The Australian Council of Health Care Standards. (1992) Position Paper.
Zetland, Australia: The Australian Council of Health Care Standards.
The Australian Council of Health Care Standards. (1988) Quality Assurance in
Practice: An overview of the concept and examples of activities. Zetland,
Australia: The Australian Council of Health Care Standards.
Thornber, M. (1992). A model of Continuous Quality Improvement for health
service organisations. Australian Health Review, 15, (1), 56 - 69.
Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1992). Action Research in Higher Education: Examples &
Reflections. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1995). Models for Action Research. In S. Pinchen & R.
Passfield. (Eds.) Moving On: Creative applications of action learning and action
research. (pp. 3 - 29). Queensland, Australia: Action Research, Action Learning
and Process Management.
How to Keep a Research Diary
© Ian Hughes 1996
A research diary is a record of the researcher's involvement in a project. While
the contents of the diary are sometimes used as data, they are different from
the information, observations, records or other data which are collected
because you think they may yield information about the phenomona under
study. The diary contains information about the researcher, what the
researcher does, and the process of research. It complements the data yielded
by the research methodology.
The main reasons for keeping a research diary are:
To generate a history of the project, your thinking and the research process.
To provide material for reflection.
To provide data on the research process.
To record the development of your reseearch skills.
Reflective practice in research and the professions requires health
professionals and researchers to:
reflect on their practices and discourses, that is, what they do, say and write,
formulate plans of action based on their reflections and knowledge,
implement the actions they have planned, and
keep records which accumulate knowledge about the effects of their action.
Researchers use the research diary as a tool to reflect on their research
practices. The research diary is an important tool in participatory action
research, which can be used by all participants, whether their primary interest
is research, professional practice or social change.
Keeping a diary is a useful means to
explore your practices,
provide a mirror in which you find yourself reflected,
get practice and gain confidence in recording research and writing,
be empowered as a researcher through sharing experience with peers,
engage in supportive but critical interaction between peers and participants.
How
It is important to write in the diary regularly. You should write something every
day you do any work on your research project, and also at regular intervals (say
weekly). Make a diary entry even if you do nothing else towards the project in
a given week.
Some people use exercise books or bound notebooks for their diary. Others use
loose leaf paper, special forms or a floppy disk. Nothing in the diary should be
thrown away. You should not try to produce a perfectly polished essay. The
diary is a record of your developing thought and action, and of the real process
of action research and reflective practice. Because your diary entries will be of
different lengths from day to day, a printed diary is not a good idea.
It is often useful to make entries under the headings:
Reflection
Plan
Action
Observation
or at least separate your reflection from recording of events and observations.
Some people use a highly structured format using prepared forms. However this
is not esential, provided you can find your way aroound your own diary. It is
very useful to leave space for later comments or additions, either in wide
margins, on the backs of pages, or in good spaces between entries.
There are no hard and fast rules about style, language, and spelling. Keep your
diary in the style which which you find useful, and which helps you to reflect
on what you are doing. Critically reflect on you own diary keeping. If you are
working with an action research group, use a style and format agreed to in the
group.
What goes in?
Summary of what happens each day you work on the project.
Stories of conversations, discussions, interviews, planning sessions, and so on
with peers, co-researchers, teachers, supervisors and participants.
Questions and topics for further study or investigation.
Guesses, hunches, thoughts, dreams.
Diagrams, drawings, mind-maps.
Observations.
Reflections on what I saw.
Reflections on re-reading the diary.
Plans for future action or research.
Some of these, such as observations and research plans, will be written up fully
in field notes, progress reports, research proposals or other documents. What
goes in the diary are the ideas as they occurr to you, or as they are being
developed. Sometimes people include copies of all documents in their diary,
arranged in chronological order.
Reflecting on your practices, performance, behavours, feelings and actions as a
researcher are an important part of your diary. This can include reflections on
your diary entries.
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/arthesis.html#a_art_writing