RADICAL TEFL

eing the teacher's (the client is neglected) whereas if the real problems met in the classroom
encounter really belong to the student, then until students' learning problems have been
identified and understood, and a clear problem diagnosed for enquiry, a research project in the
classroom cannot begin its work.
It is for this reason partly that Dewey focuses on diagnosis of the 'problematic situation' (sec
1 in main text above), with problems extracted and probed (through questioning) as
investigation continues. An essential insight into enquiry, for Dewey, is an understanding of
how an enquirer diagnoses problems. Hammersely writes (1993b: 218-26) “there is more to
teaching (than enquiry) and the other parts ought to be valued more highly (for example)
diagnosing learning difficulties”; (my emphasis). In the main text above (sec. 1) I have
quoted some of Dewey's analysis on how the process of enquiry actually starts from
problematic situations in research. AR, while it advocates starting from problems, does not
offer an understanding how this is done. Compared to Dewey, the understanding of the
research process by AR, in this respect, is superficial.
3. AR, compared to Dewey, neglects validation (scrutiny) 49
AR nowhere, so far as I can find, offers a thorough discussion of how teachers can validate
their AR research conclusions, nor of the need for validation, nor an awareness of issues
involved in scrutiny or validation of claims arising from AR. With the exception of work by
Hammersley, the literature in Education on AR which I consulted is silent concerning the
limitations of qualitative research (for example, see the largely unselfcritical and unreflective
articles in Denzin & Lincoln (ed)(2000, 2 nd ed. ).
Further AR often seems quite un-selfcritical of its own method of enquiry, and I have not
found in AR literature exploration, discussion or even identification of the limitations and
weaknesses of the claims of AR as a research method. Similarly, in work by contributors to
the often-cited Denzin & Lincoln (ibid), there is a lack of reflection on claims made for
critical theory, from which much AR derives its underpinning. Dewey, by comparison,
consistently keeps issues of validation in mind. (NB: For work on pitfalls in doing research,
see the footnote in bold in sec. 5. 2 above: Martyn Hammersley's work here is the most
significant)
%%% Alistair Maclean
49 Footnote: the need to scrutinise some claims in Carr & Kemmis (1986).
(Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research
(especially pp 55-58; 66-75 & chapter 4). . . .
A close reading of Carr & Kemmis, for this writer, suggests that the book is in two separate parts, and
that the conclusion concerning AR in the second half of the book do not follow from the analysis
(which derives from critical theory) given in the first part of the book. The first half of the book (on
philosophy) seems to have been drafted by Wilfred Carr, and the second half by Stephen Kemmis, and
the book is sometimes, without discussion, cited in EFLT AR research studies as a definitive statement
concerning AR, but perhaps Carr & Kemmis is not so often read. Whilst Carr & Kemmis draw from
critical theory in their early chapters , however they do not, in that book, or elsewhere that I could find,
critically examine the presuppositions of critical theory. (See especially the argument and claims made
in ch. 4)
According to Elliot & Sarland (1995: 380), within mainstream education Wilfred Carr and Stephen
Kemmis are, according to a sample of teacher researchers, “top runners … in a very small number of
people (who have) a very wide influence (on AR)”. However, they write (ibid:372) “the claims of (AR)
have not been subjected to systematic study”. See esp. (ibid: 373). Martyn Hammersley also offers a
critique of AR, teacher research and of Carr & Kemmis (1986) in a key paper (1993b: esp. 235-45) On
the teacher as researcher .
[For significant work by Wilfred Carr see his (1983) on educational research; and his (1997a), (2004)
& (2007); and also the first two papers (on theory and practice in teaching) in his For Education (1995).
Professor Carr is Emeritus Professor at the University of Sheffield Dept. of Education, and the Editor
of the journal Pedagogy, Culture and Society]
33