Action Research A Methodology for Change and Development

14 ACTION RESEARCH
writers seek resolutions to the challenges posed by postmodernist
approaches. A particularly interesting contribution comes from Schostak
(1999: 401), whose typology of kinds of action is based on the assumption
that ‘competent action is simply not possible for anyone’ and that ‘because
one cannot foresee all events, action cannot be the product of a total rationality,
a complete grasp of a given situation, or state of affairs’. Schostak cites
Tragesser’s (1977) concept of ‘prehension’, which covers ‘those situations
where the grasp of something is incomplete, but not arbitrary and can
provide a basis for action.’ In practice, this is always the position for action
researchers: the collection and analysis of data provide a much better basis
for taking action than is ever normally available, but action researchers are
always in the position of taking decisions on the basis of prehension rather
than full apprehension of the situation.
The nature of the self
The quality of action research depends upon the reflexive sensitivity of the
researchers, whose data collection, analysis and interpretations will all be
mediated by their sense of self and identity. Although some, such as
Whitehead (1989), see an exploration of the self and improvement of one’s
own practice as the central purpose of carrying out action research, in my
view this tips the balance too much towards professional development
rather than research. For me, the importance of self-enquiry in action
research is a matter of research quality. 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.
There is a considerable body of literature on the nature of the self and
methods for developing self-knowledge. Of particular interest to me is
Feldman’s appropriation of existentialism to re-orient teacher education
through a process of self-study as ‘a moral and political activity’ towards
‘changing who we are as teachers’ (Feldman 2003: 27–8). Many writers
place emphasis on writing as a self-revelatory and creative process and the
research diary or journal as an essential companion to the process of carrying
out action research (O'Hanlon 1997; Altrichter and Holly 2005).
But what exactly is the nature of self and identity? When I first became
an action researcher, while still a teacher, I assumed that my ‘self’ was a
unique core identity, akin in many ways to the idea of a ‘soul’ which had
been a major part of my upbringing as a Christian. This self embodied
values and beliefs, it was responsible for its actions (here the Christian
concept of sin fitted well) and had a ‘voice’ that could be heard – or not –
depending on whether I was accorded respect and rights by participating in
a democratic community. In my early work, I presumed this definition of
the self more or less unproblematically, believing that action research could