Becoming an action researcher: an exploration of one significant moment in the auto/biography of my learning Zoe Parker Prepared for the Second International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, UK, August 16-20, 1998

   

What does it mean to become a researcher? What kind of identity can one construct for oneself? What does the process of constructing a research identity look, sound and feel like? I want to show a significant moment in my learning as I was introduced to a completely new philosophy of research.

This work is set in the context of my PhD which is an action research enquiry into the experience of studying for a research degree. An important element of my thesis is the notion of the auto/biography of one's learning (Parker, 1998). The purpose of this special kind of auto/biography is to narrate an edited version of one's life which focuses on articulation and explanation of what it means to each individual to learn. I believe that as educators we should acknowledge the authority of experience and try to maintain authentic relationships with others. I originally set off on this path because I was concerned that there were many tidy accounts of research which edited out the real struggles involved. Almost all my practice as a teacher educator involves me in facilitating others' research projects. Telling my story means that I reveal some of my frailties, doubts and difficulties as a researcher. I believe that this can be of benefit to students who are struggling with their own research.

In telling the story of how I became an action researcher, there are many possible starting points to choose from. I have chosen to start the story with the first seminar I attended at Kingston University. This was just before I took up an appointment as a research assistant. This is a significant moment for me because it constituted my first introduction to action research. At the seminar, we were discussing the work in progress of M, who had been doing action research for several years. The seminar also constituted my invitation to become a member of the research community centred around the department of Education at Kingston University.

The group whom I was joining were well-established with a very sophisticated understanding of their action research methodology. I had heard of action research only as a phrase: as yet it held no meaning for me. I had recently been trained as a psychologist within a traditional ethos. I had learnt to give `objective' accounts written in the third person and to believe that my stance as a researcher was value-free.

I have a record of part of this seminar on audiotape. My first, impressionistic, analysis of the tape yielded very emotive keywords which either recurred in the conversation, or summarised aspects which I found striking. In my notes I wrote: hurts and wounds; anger; newness; disciplines; ignorance - knowing; truth. There is only scope here for me to demonstrate why I came to the first two categories in this list.

The conversation centres around a fictional critical account of issues which concerned M at the time, as she worked to inspire and facilitate her colleagues' professional development (Evans, 1997; 1998). M was working as deputy headteacher (principal) in a large comprehensive school (high-school). She was carrying out action research into her practice as a staff developer and had hit some difficult ethical issues. How could she work with colleagues and discuss the issues which really mattered without the conversation becoming too personalised and challenging in a way which could damage working relationships? She overcame her dilemma by transforming her accounts into fictionalised stories which raised the key issues without naming and shaming real individuals.

Hurts and wounds

I arrived eleven minutes late for the seminar which meant that I felt defensive about my first meeting with new colleagues being characterised by unpunctuality. It also meant that I did not have the benefit of any preamble to the stories which might have put them into context for me. A third consequence of my late arrival was that P, the only person who had met me before, could not introduce me to the group as this would have interrupted the flow of M's exposition and the discussion. I remember struggling to make sense of what seemed an utterly surreal situation as the group discussed the story entitled `Harry's Wound'. Harry was a character who represented a teacher who was having great difficulties. His wound symbolised his difficulties. I had never encountered this kind of qualitative work. In my diary I wrote "Eleven minutes late, but where am I? Completely surreal."

‘Hurts and wounds’ refers to the the title of M's story; but it comes also from my own discomfiture at placing myself in the wrong through my late arrival. There are uncomfortable points in the conversation where I apologise for my shortcomings and the difficulty I am having in making sense of what is happening. Below are extracts from the tape. My thoughts and feelings in response to the experience of the seminar are presented in italics.

The group are discussing changes that M has made to a story they have discussed previously:

P "...so she's taken that out." (P:65)

Z "And now we're asking her to put it back in? And look at her philosophy?" (Z:66)

So wasn’t it a definitive version that M wrote? Why are they mucking about with it like this? In this kind of work, do you revise and redraft in the light of the comments that other people make? This is uncomfortable and difficult - like having your efforts pulled apart publicly.

P "No she's written her story and she's done it, you just haven't had it in our original version." (P:67)

Z "Oh I'm sorry, I'm very sorry, I'm very confused by all this." (Z:68)

I've got it wrong again! Can I make sense of this without asking questions? When I try I seem to get it completely wrong?

M "You mean you haven't seen it?" (M:69)

P "No you didn't have the paper." [Addressed to Z] (P:70)

M "Oh dear." (M:71)

Z "I got quite lost, when you talked about........." (Z:72)

P ".... By the way, this is Z our new research assistant." (P:73)

She's introducing me. Should I apologise for arriving late?

Z ".... .a totally surreal situation." (Z:74)

M "So to be a research assistant you've got to work out what's been said without reading it?" (M: 75-6)

P "No it's because she was only appointed and I didn't have time to send her the thing and I didn't know she could come tonight, so it's great..."(P:77-79)

Do they understand just how confusing all this is to a newcomer? Do they think I'm dense? M sounds sympathetic. I'm glad P is putting things in a positive light.

Later in the conversation, the metaphor of the wound is discussed:

P "And you define it as a wound, which is not his fault is it?" (P:113)

R "Finding out about yourself is not a pleasant experience" (R:114)

Z "No it isn't" (Z:115)

Am I finding out about myself? I'm finding it hard being so in the dark myself.

P ..."She's not blaming him in that fictional writing, but you could change it a bit and leave out some of the harsh things; the thing is you are not blaming him you are understanding him as having a problem, having a wound which can heal" (P:120-122)

M "I was really worried about how he was going to respond to it ... I felt really bad about it and I felt oh god, I wish I hadn't given it to him. And then he said can I keep it...and I thought, oh Christ... he's going to come back and say how dare you write all this?" (M:146-150)

Is this research? What about objective accounts and research being value free? Where is the rigour? No control groups. Where is the validity and reliability? How can she generalise? It sounds terribly risky to turn things into fiction. M obviously takes it all very seriously and worries about her colleagues' feelings.

Anger

The tape includes an extended discussion of how the personal element in this kind of research account could make colleagues angry:

I "I would have been really angry" (I:157)

R "I would, I'm pretty obstinate most of the time, but" (R:158)

Dothey object to M's approach? Is she doing something very different from what they do?

I ..."If somebody at work took it upon themselves to write something like that about me, I would be very angry" (I:163)

But I thought the real people in the situation were not really being directly written about but turned into characters who could be anyone.

P ..."You might be very angry with the analysis of the needs of schools as well; and teachers have been enormously angry about the way researchers have taken information and made their interpretations and the worst thing is when those schools are identified" (P:168)

P is defending M's approach. She seems to be saying something about the way researchers have misbehaved in the past - at least in psychology we keep our subjects anonymous.

I ..."The reason I would be angry has nothing to do with research...it is because it is personal" (I: 171)

Why does she sound so angry about the personal aspect? Does she have her own problems in mind? This kind of research seems to be very emotional, I don't think I like the sound of it.

The section of tape that the above is extracted from actually has the word `angry' repeated nine times. P expands the remit of the discussion to consider broader research issues; I brings it back to a concern for individual's feelings. This provides an intriguing contrast between the broader social and research context and the importance of specific persons within the context.

One impassioned speech from R is the longest section where just one person speaks:

"There are plenty of people who wish to just administer their education in the transmission mode...Don't start thinking about education! This is what you've got to do! OK, fine tell me what to do and I'll do it. Don't make me all the time psychoanalyse everything I do when in actual fact if I go into transmission mode...I'm delivering a body of knowledge which the government wants. They've messed me about; they've de-professionalised me in the last ten years. Sod it! I'll just do what they say and then we won't end up with all the frustrations...somewhere down the line people will say well where does it all stop: how often have I got to keep on changing and adapting?" (R:34-46)

Wow! These people seem to get really fired up. What's been happening to teachers lately that has made them feel like this? I wish I knew more about the education world. His kind of anger and the way he sounds so down about teaching reminds me of my friends in Further Education who told me not to become a lecturer when I was studying for my Postgraduate Certificate in Education.

There has only been space here for me to give a flavour of the seminar and the longer paper about it. When I expand this argument, I wish to do two things: to write about the positive aspects in the seminar and my perceptions of it, in order to restore some balance; and to make the links between aspects of the seminar and the action research literature, in terms of my current understandings.

Evans, M. 1997. Shifting the leadership focus from control to empowerment - a case study, School Leadership & Management 17 (2) 273-283.

Evans, M. 1998. Using story to promote the continuing professional development of teachers, British Journal of Inservice Education 24 (1).

Lomax, P., Evans, M. & Parker, Z. 1998 For liberation ...not less for love, in (ed) M.L.Hamilton, Reconceptualizing Teaching Practice, Falmer.

Parker, Z. 1998 PhD students and the autobiographies of their learning, in M.Erben (ed) Biography in Education, Falmer Press.