Complete thesis - Murdoch University

In conclusion, Action Research, as a desirable alternative to approaches based on a positivistideology and scientific philosophy, is most appropriate in certain contexts. One might arguethat the strengths and weaknesses of Action Research should be considered on their ownmerit, and in the context of the research undertaken. As an example, although low controlof the environment is noted above as a weakness of Action Research, and compensatedby quantity of data, this extensive data collection facilitates an approach that draws fromthe grounded theory methodology. In effect, applied to Action Research, the data drivesan emergent intervention. This differs from stricter adherence to Action Research, whichassumes a cycle is completed before data analysis is undertaken.Table 4.1: Criteria for the validity of Action Research (based on Krefting (1991) and Guba andLincoln (1994))ValidityCriterionCredibilityTransferabilityDependabilityConfirmabilityAddressed byprolonged and varied field experience; time sampling; reflexivity(field journal); triangulation; member checking; peer examination;interview technique; establishing authority of researcher; structuralcoherence; referential adequacynominated sample; comparison of sample to demographic data;time sample; dense descriptionaudit; dense description of research methods; stepwise replication;triangulation; peer examination; code-recode procedureaudit; triangulation; reflexivityIt may be that alternative frameworks are needed to support Action Research as rigorous andhigh quality, without sacrificing its relevance. Krefting (1991) identifies several strategies asapplicable in ensuring the rigour and quality of qualitative research. These can be appliedto Guba and Lincoln (1994)’s model, which describes four general criteria for evaluation ofresearch (see Table 4.1).Anderson et al (1994) also suggest criteria for testing the validity of Action Research, fromKock et al (2000)’s Action Research perspective. These are listed in Table 4.2.Table 4.2: Principles for the evaluation of Action Research (Anderson et al, 1994)ValidityCriterionOutcomeProcessDemocraticCatalyticDialogicAddressesDid it solve the problem?Was the activity educative and informative?Was the research undertaken in collaboration with all involvedwith the problem under investigation?Did the research transform the realities of those involved?Could the research be discussed with peers in different settings?These are seen to address generalisability issues. The framework described in Table 4.3198