supporting tiriti-based curriculum delivery in mainstream early ...

The first one I read was by Madeline Church (2004). It seemed to be a
very personally reflective thesis written by way of creative writing, self-interviews,
poetry, scripts for television, images and artwork, and whole transcripts of
meetings. At this stage I was struggling to see this as viable action research. I did
not doubt the validity of research components such as narrative or self-study, only
that they were action research.
The more action research theses I investigated the more they seemed to be
based mainly on self-reflection rather than collaboration with participants – the
“self as hero” (Richards, 2005, p. 197). For example, Delong (2002) examined her
own practice first, before investigating professional development, and Hartog
(2004) wrote a storied account of her inquiry as she explored what it meant to live
her values in practice. I was struggling with the espoused concept of action
research depicted in texts as an orderly cycle of powerful interactions between co-
researchers. When I considered examples of the practice of action research as
portrayed in theses described above, there was no match at all with my own
experiences.
It was at this stage I was directed towards two action research theses that
seem to more closely resonate with my own action research: Suttisa (2005) and
Cervin (2001). Both these researchers had collaborated with participants to devise
actions for social improvement. Suttisa‟s research was carried out in rural Thai
society, where they faced problems such as flooding, health issues and conflicts,
whereas Cervin worked with three community groups in Auckland. However, the
difference I noted was that these two theses were based on social transformation
within contexts aligned with development. My own research, while aiming to be
collaborative and seeking to eventually contribute to social change, did not seem to
fit the scenarios of participatory action research either described by Suttisa and
Cervin above.
I decided to further consider my reflections by presenting my thoughts for
discussion in two forums – one with my colleagues at AUT and the second with a
wider group of education researchers at the 2006 New Zealand Association for
Research in Education (NZARE) conference. Feedback from an AUT colleague
(David Giles) led me to investigate appreciative inquiry; initially through attending
presentations at 2006 NZARE conference and subsequently through reading
97