Action Research A Methodology for Change and Development

DOING ACTION RESEARCH DIFFERENTLY 59
– that my desire to understand their views, their reasoning, and their interpretations
was never achieved’. He claims he provided no more than a catalytic
service in helping them to draw upon their own existing knowledge to
make the best decision for themselves. Referring to the work of Kemmis
(2001) and Reason and Brabury (2001), he says his approach is ‘emancipatory’
and his aim ‘liberalization of the individual’.
Reflections on the culturally responsive nature of
action research methodology
What initially fascinated me about exploring action research in these three
settings – four in fact since health/social care and community development
are substantially different from each other – was how different they are
from action research as I first experienced it as a teacher in England.
The kind of action research I experienced in the 1980s had developed
to fit the values of an education service in which I counted myself as a ‘progressive
teacher in a progressive school’ dedicated to ‘drawing out’ (Latin:
educare) the innate knowledge and understanding in the individual child
(Somekh 2000). The liberal–humanist tradition was not, in fact, as egalitarian
as our aspirations for it, but during the 1970s and up to 1982 it provided
a culture in England in which funding was available through the Schools
Council for teachers to work in partnership with university-based
researchers, and action research could be the dual mechanism for transforming
the curriculum, and for the individual empowerment of teachers.
After the Schools Council was disbanded leaving no formal mechanism for
partnership between teachers, policy makers and university-based
researchers, teachers continued to have the opportunity to become action
researchers in the context of part-time masters degrees. The norm for action
research in Britain became the individual study carried out by the teacher–
researcher under the supervision of an academic tutor for an award-bearing
course. It had a strong orientation towards teacher professional development
and reflexivity and was often well grounded in the action research literature
because of its location in part-time study for higher degrees. This
work was strongly influenced by the work of Hopkins (1985), McNiff
(1988), Whitehead (1989), Winter (1989), Elliott (1991), Dadds (1995) and
others. Although students were often required to read Carr and Kemmis’
(1983) book, Becoming Critical: Knowing through Action Research, very few
studies could be said to be strongly informed by critical theory in terms of
having any purpose of political emancipation.
At the same time, the tradition of action research as a collaborative
endeavour between teachers and university-based researchers, which had
flourished under the Schools Council, was continued in a small number
of funded projects of which my own work provides examples. In these