Action Research A Methodology for Change and Development

158 ACTION RESEARCH
USA, in September 2003. Other visitors from the international action
research community during the first two years were Allan Feldman from the
University of Massachusetts, USA, and Dennis Sumara and Brent Davis from
the University of Alberta, Canada.
The biggest challenge during the first six months was building relationships
with schools, explaining the role of action research in the evaluation,
and recruiting volunteer teachers, leaders/managers and support staff
to undertake action research studies. Travel time to the Midlands and
London from Manchester was a constraint for Di and Cathy but Andy lived
only a few miles from the schools he was working with. Since each was
employed on the project for only three days a week, an average of about a
day and a half was all they could devote to facilitating action research. This
time could be used flexibly, allowing visits of two or even three days on
occasions, but it was clear that we could not offer a level of support anywhere
near as extensive as that enjoyed by teachers in the PALM project.
Even Andy, although he could visit the schools and college much more
easily, would not have the time for extensive and frequent visits. Our first
step was to visit each school, talk through with heads and ICT Test Bed
managers/co-ordinators an information leaflet about the evaluation and
negotiate with them our draft code of practice. This set out the values and
principles by which we would be conducting the evaluation, including that
we would: treat all data as confidential but use them as the basis for written
reports; always report to the DfEs/Becta in written not oral form (to avoid
informal, covert reporting); negotiate case study reports with those concerned
in advance of their wider circulation; allow a ‘right of reply’ in cases
where a participant disagreed with any statement in our reports; and
publish teachers’ action research with their name and the name of their
school. In view of the importance to the schools of being publicly accredited
for their ICT Test Bed work in a system where education is strongly
politicized, we were asked by the ICT Test Bed Evaluation steering group,
convened by the DfES/Becta, to change the anonymity clause in the first
draft of the code of practice. Originally this read: ‘In the reports, schools
and individuals will not normally be referred to by name.’ The revised
version read: ‘In the evaluators’ reports, schools and colleges will have the
right to decide whether or not they wish to be named. Anonymity will be
assured where requested. If schools and colleges wish to be named the evaluators
will let key people see draft reports at least a week in advance of
wider circulation.’ Although this clause of the code did not refer to the
action research work on which I am focusing here, it was to be important
in setting the tone of our relationships with some schools and is further discussed
in the section on issues below.
Very soon we realized that to recruit teachers to participate in action
research we would have to make exceptional arrangements for the first four
months. Di, Cathy and Andy would have to make far more visits to schools