Practitioner+Research

=Practitioner Research=

Goodfellow, J., & Hedges, H. (2007). Practitioner research ‘Centre Stage’: Contexts, contributions and challenges. In L. Keesing- Styules & H. Hedges, Theorising early childhood practice: Emerging dialogues. Castle Hill, NSW: Pademelon Press.

media type="custom" key="6893255"

Even though the authors of this article come from a different education sector (early childhood), there was, nevertheless, a lot to be gained from their understanding of Practitioner Research (PR). To be honest, as I was reading this I was struggling to differentiate it in my mind from Action Research. Is Action Research a subset of PR? Can everything that can be said of Action Research also be said of PR, but more besides? I think if I were to construct a Venn diagram of PR and Action Research, the two circles would almost entirely overlap, but for a few differences. The article caricatures Action Research as being constrained by its step by step processes and cycles, even comparing its style to a recipe book. But is this how Action Researchers describe themselves, or is it a straw man created to give more of a sense of difference from Action Research than there really is? Goodfellow and Hedges point out that one of the key differences from AR is that PR is morel likely to be disseminated beyond the teacher's actual practice. This is something I will need to enquire about further, as I had thought that a lot of AR was published, and that there were journals devoted to disseminating this kind of research. Another key point of differentiation claimed by the authors is that PR is more critical in its approach, more likely to seek change (of a social justice nature?). This could be by an improvement in practice or depth of understanding, or it could be in the voice it gives to the participants. The authors also claim that PR could provide the kind of evidence, based in practice, that policy-makers so often demand. This indicates a real opportunity for teachers to take control of the knowledge of their field, to build up an evidence base that is not exclusively dependent on external researchers (with their own academic or ideological agendas). It reminded me a lot of the discussions held in our forum about policy-makers' demands for quantitative research, and how emerging forms of research respond to this situation. PR also provides a bridge between the academic world and that of the classroom practitioner. After all, what is the point of academic research if it does not ultimately impact upon classroom practice? Do academic researchers usually research for their academic community, for policy-makers, or for the practitioner? I would imagine a lot of research is done for the first two categories, leaving a gap waiting to be filled by the practitioners themselves. I do wonder, however, how many teachers who are not affiliated with a university conduct this kind of research? The authors are quite up front about the challenges of PR, including the conflict with the daily demands of professional practice, and the lack of access to university resources. Is it possible that it is part-time post-graduate students who are full-time teachers who provide this essential link between academia and the practitioner's context? I would certainly like to read about any schools that have successfully developed a culture of PR within their schools. And if this has developed, has it been the result of the school leadership driving and supporting this (top down), or has it arisen from the bottom up? I don't think a school principal could successfully develop a PR culture without taking significant steps to ensure that teachers have the time and peer/leadership support needed to do it justice. The leadership would also have to be prepared to engage with the results and whatever change might be called for.

I look forward to reading further about this approach, and in particular seeking to clarify the differences between PR and Action Research.

A response from Elaine Mayo:


=
// Congratulations on a fine piece of writing where you reflect critically on an article. You have used the tool of comparison (between AR and PR) to tease out your own thinking in these areas, the discussion has allowed your reader to understand some of the points made in the article, and you have brought thinking from your own context into the discussion. Well done. //======

=
// Your desire to " clarify the differences between PR and Action Research" is an approach that does not interest me when I put on my post-structural hat. It suggests that the intellectual exercise of doing this is an end in its own right. //======

=
// I see it as important to be able to discuss similarities and differences and be **well enough** informed to know that the two terms are actually not all that different - any discussion about whether a particular study is one thing or the other is, quite frankly, to my way of thinking a waste of time. What matters is what you actually do rather than how you name it. From a pragmatic or post-structural perspective the is name is no more than a label that allows conversation to proceed. //======

=
// Debate about the differences between AR and PR is important because they allows people who specialise in methodology to tease out ideas about how one form of research might restrict or enable activities that another form of research tends (very subtly) to disallow. That is why there is discussion about the two terms in the article you have reviewed - the authors are discussing the idea that AR might be restrictive in some situations - the reader is made aware of this - that is the point. This is why I do not see it as helpful to try to sort out exactly which is what - what is helpful is to read the critiques and add the ideas into your reportoire of ideas that you can discuss **if and when** you need to take part in a methodological discussion. YOu are aware of the debates and will, undoubtedly be able to take part in them. (A more important debate, politically, is about the value and validity of both forms of research - they and all the forms discussed in this course are emergent and therefore challenged by the older traditions.) //======

=
// What is important within both AR and PR is the practice-based, action investigation that you will undertake. YOur point about the gap in practitioner research is important. You would be interested to read some research that ... So, your challenge now is to plan some of the kind of research you see is missing. //======