View/Open - ARAN - National University of Ireland, Galway

252
Chapter 6 Phase Two
knowledge gained in one cycle can be built upon and developed in future cycles.
The report from this phase of the research included reflection excerpts in order to
describe how the research progressed from step to step. Avison and Wood-
Harper (1991) argue that the researcher’s level of involvement in the study can
affect the level of objectivity that is required for other approaches (Avison and
Wood-Harper, 1991) and while this may be true it may also be argued that AR
does not aim to be objective and furthermore for the purpose of this study the
researcher described her own background and reflected upon how this may
impact upon the research. McKay and Marshall (2001) pointed out that this self-
involvement of the researcher is one of the distinguishing features of AR,
whereby the researcher is viewed as the key participant in the research process
and works collaboratively with participants to bring about change in the problem
context. For example by adopting an open communication approach and holding
many meetings the research process was informed not only by the researcher but
also by the co-researchers,
6.10 Summary
This chapter has described phase two of this research study. The findings from
the case study in phase one of this study informed the design of phase two. Phase
two was undertaken in order to address one problem with resident autonomy in
the case study site. A small targeted change initiative guided by action research
principles was used to enhance the approach to resident care planning. This new
approach involved residents in choosing their care preferences and determining
how they would like to spend their day. It equipped staff with the knowledge and
skills of how to negotiate this care and how to gather information which would
tell them more about the biography of the residents for whom they cared for.
The researcher used an action research approach as a systematic way of
involving staff, introducing change and evaluating the outcomes. Open
communication was maintained throughout and this was key to the collaborative
nature of the research. A small element of resident autonomy has now been
enhanced in this case study site.