Action Research in Practice

Partnership for Social Justice in Education

Bill Atweh, Stephen Kemmis, Patricia Weeks

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• Print ISBN: 9780415171526
• eBook ISBN: 9781134694921
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book presents a collection of stories from action research projects in schools and a university. This collection is more than simply an illustration of the scope of action research in education - it shows how projects that differ on a variety of dimensions can raise similar themes, problems and issues. The book begins with theme chapters discussing action research, social justice and partnerships in research. The case study chapters cover topics such as: * school environment - how to make a school a healthier place to be * parents - how to involve them more in decision-making * students as action researchers * a state system - a collaborative effort between university staff and a state education department * gender - how to promote gender equity in schools * improving assessment in the social sciences * staff development planning * doing a PhD through action research * writing up action research projects.

Part 1
THE PROJECT

1
PARAPET

From meta-project to network

Bill Atweh and Stephen Kemmis

The Participatory Action Research for the Advancement of Practice in Education and Teaching (PARAPET) Project is a meta-project connecting people working in a loose collaborative network facilitating exchange of experience across a range of participatory action research (PAR) projects in schools and universities. It arose out of a programme of activities aimed at developing an action research culture at The Queensland University of Technology (QUT). This chapter presents the story and accomplishments of the project in its first year of life, discusses some of the issues and difficulties the project faced and the changes it underwent to deal with them. First, we discuss the context in which it arose.

QUT was established in 1991 by the amalgamation of the Queensland Institute of Technology and the Brisbane College of Advanced Education. While individual academics from both institutions were already involved in research activities prior to the amalgamation, a major task of the new university was to develop a research culture within the whole of the staff and to establish the supporting infrastructure. Supported by policies from the federal government, QUT adopted procedures for concentrating available research funds into a handful of university or faculty research centres and other research concentrations within the various schools. After an initial period of base funding, university and faculty grants to these centres and research concentration areas was on a competitive basis, implying that some problems could arise in collaborative projects across the various disciplines and in developing new research areas.

Along with the changes in research culture at the university, there were changes for staff, too, for example, in finding opportunities for staff development to assist with the application of new research methods and in handling new types of data prompted by changes in social and educational research paradigms. There was also an interest in developing kinds of research that would cross the so-called pure/applied divide in university research, linking university researchers with people in the professions. Funds were available both within the university and from the federal government to develop new expertise and establish new directions in research.

A group of researchers from the Centre for Mathematics and Science Education received a grant from the Mentor Programme of the (Queensland) Consortium for Staff Development Units to bring Stephen Kemmis to the faculty as a Visiting Scholar. The main aim of his visit was to build upon and strengthen the interest and expertise in critical action research that already existed in the faculty.

Stephen Kemmis came to QUT in June 1994 and offered a one-week short course that laid the theoretical foundations of action research as well as the practice of planning and conduct of PAR projects. At the end of the short course, a number of participants indicated that they would like to continue working together and exchanging ideas about action research. The groups consisted of people who have interpreted action research in different ways, yet they shared a commitment for the agenda of social justice, inclusive collaboration and mutual self-development. The PARAPET project grew from this set of associations.

Four months later, in October 1994, the group of people committed to working together as a continuing project group had begun to develop a clearer notion of what a shared project might look like. It could establish links between several PAR projects already under way and others in various stages of development, and initiate a collaborative programme of PAR by the group with an explicit intention of exploring and developing PAR projects, practices and processes.

Members agreed that they would seek opportunities to extend their own PAR practice in their own projects, but that they would work together in a meta-project conducted by the group. Group members formally adopted the name PARAPET as the title for the project, and formally endorsed four purposes for its meta-project:

1. To create a forum in which members could act as critical friends for one another in the process of exploring participatory action research in and through practice.
2. To act as an information exchange, and as a resource for group members: (a) to exchange information about how the different participatory action research projects being conducted by members of the group contribute to the improvement of education and teaching at different levels of education (from school to university) and (b) to share the group's resources of expertise.
3. To act as a study group, developing a programme of study into the improvement of education and teaching through participatory action research, and sharing reading resources among the various projects with which group members are associated.
4. To promote the development of expertise in and a culture of participatory action research beyond the group, and to raise consciousness about the role it can play in educational, cultural and community development.

At another meeting, also in October 1994, the group endorsed an organisational structure for the project based on the approach followed in a project co-ordinated by César Cascante Fernández in Asturias, Spain. According to Stephen Kemmis, the Asturias Project has two meetings per month: one in which participants exchange practical PAR experience arising from project work, and a second, held as a study group meeting, in which participants discuss common readings about PAR, educational research, and critical analyses of developments in education in Spain, especially in Asturias (the province in which project participants are located—mostly in and around the cities of Oviedo and Gíjon). The Asturias group holds its convenors’ meetings approximately monthly. Finally, the project has two conferences each year: one for project participants, to discuss practical developments through the PAR projects, and a second more general conference addressing topical issues in the development of education in Asturias and Spain, in which the Asturias project group is joined by other invited speakers and fee-paying participants. The latter conference is held as a contribution to broader professional and educational development, and has sometimes been supported by such educationally progressive professional groups as the Movement for the Renovation of Pedagogy. It was anticipated that this kind of project organisation would permit maximum participation in discussion and sharing of experience, and generate a shared sense of direction and commitment in the conduct of the group's work. The adopted PARAPET organisation was intended to provide for:

1. Some meetings of the whole PARAPET meta-group (about five or six times a year) to discuss participants’ PAR projects and reflections on shared readings, as well as attend to organisational matters.
2. More frequent meetings of PAR project groups—that is, of those people working collaboratively on shared projects (perhaps once a month, or more frequently, as required for progress in each project).
3. Regular meetings of project group convenors to co-ordinate and share experience between project groups, and to share ideas about useful readings for study across groups (about once every two months, in the month between whole group meetings).
4. The possibility of conferences and workshops, probably of two kinds, perhaps within the framework of other existing conferences:
   • working conferences of the PARAPET group itself, held with the purposes of sharing experience across the group as a whole, providing a shared time horizon for reporting project work, and creating a basis of project documentation which could lead to the production of joint publications;
   • more open conferences (like a teachers’ conference) at which PARAPET group members (and perhaps others working in similar ways) could share their experience and celebrate their achievements in the presence of an audience beyond the PARAPET group.

With some modifications, this structure turned out to be roughly the way PARAPET worked in 1994–5. The meetings of the whole group tended to concentrate more on working as a study group than on exchanging detailed reports on individual projects. The distinction between a convenors’ meeting and whole-group meetings was blurred when it was decided that anyone interested should be able to come to the convenors’ meeting. Some planned projects did not proceed (some despite considerable effort and negotiation with potential collaborators), and some projects began to operate semi-autonomously as they pushed ahead to meet their own deadlines and objectives. Towards the end of the first year (by late 1995), other PARAPET and project meetings came to be a little overshadowed by preparations for a planned working conference (devoted to sharing project experiences and reviewing draft reports of projects as a basis for a PARAPET book) and a teachers’ conference (reporting project experience and achievements to a wider audience of teachers as a contribution to developing teacher research and inquiry). During 1995, PARAPET established an electronic mail list (PARAPET-L) where participants could receive announcements to meetings and notes of held meetings and participate in discussion about common concerns and issues.

The following two sections outline the major achievements and learnings of the project and discuss some of the issues it faced in its first year of operation. In telling this story we are conscious of the problematics of voice representation. This chapter is written by two authors who were in a leading role in establishing the group and maintaining its progress. Bill Atweh has had a major role in the organisation of Stephen Kemmis's visit and in calling for meetings and summarising the discussion at the meetings. Stephen Kemmis has acted as a participating critical friend and a mentor to many of the PAR projects represented and to the structures and operation of the group. Yet, in writing this chapter, we are aware that we are mainly representing our own view of the events and problems. At least seven PARAPET people have had a chance to read and comment critically on previous drafts of this chapter. While every care has been taken to accommodate their views, arguably, a different story might have resulted if other people had written it.

PARAPET's achievements in its first year

Probably the best way to reflect back at the activities and successes of PARAPET in its first year of operation is to revisit the aims of the meta-project and to reflect on the extent of their achievement.

Objective 1: To create a forum in which members could act as critical friends for one another in the process of exploring participatory action research in and through practice.

PARAPET has planned three types of activities towards the achievement of this goal. First, the regular whole-group meetings were envisaged to allow for members to consider the various issues faced by the different projects and share possible solutions adopted by the different projects. This was only a limited success. The meetings were not regular enough or long enough to allow the relatively large number of projects to have sufficient ‘air time’ to discuss their difficulties and receive sufficient critical assistance from other participants. Second, one of the aims of the electronic list was to allow for some discussion of specific or general issues and views. One member of the group posted a request for volunteers to become critical friends for a project that she was undertaking. Two other people have agreed to become critical friends to her specific project. Yet in general, the success of this use of the email was limited. Not all members had access to electronic email and many others had not developed sufficient expertise and habits required for such use. Third, the most successful forum for critical friends was the working conference organised at the end of September 1995. During the two days of the conference, writers of reports on each project were able to have a 50-minute session where respondents to their chapter gave constructive comments and criticism of their chapter. The majority of comments were taken in the spirit in which they were given. Attenders were unanimous in their desire to repeat the exercise in December 1995. Perhaps the challenge to the group for the future is to investigate how this aspect of the aims could be further developed and become a regular occurrence.

Objective 2: To act as an information exchange, and as a resource for group members: (a) to exchange information about how the different participatory action research projects being conducted by members of the group contribute to the improvement of education and teaching at different levels of education (from school to university) and (b) to share the group's resources of expertise.

For the same reasons discussed above, the use of the general PARAPET meetings and the email list proved to be of limited success towards the achievement of exchange of information about the successes of the various projects in changing practice in education. However, the publication of this book is to be considered as a significant accomplishment of the group towards the achievement of this aim. PARAPET can be proud of the accomplishment of providing a forum where expertise within the group can be shared. Several of the projects that evolved after the initial group was established, may have not been possible without the sharing of expertise of people from different organisational units from the university and without the critical advice provided by Stephen Kemmis to the proposing team. At least four major proposals for internal and external funds would not have been developed without the networking that occurred through PARAPET.

Objective 3: To act as a study group, developing a programme of study into the improvement of education and teaching through participatory action research, and sharing reading resources among the various projects with which group members are associated.

The whole-group meetings were planned for two hours. The first hour was usually spent on project information sharing and general business and the second hour was to be devoted to discussion of a shared reading. Readings on issues related to the principles and conduct of PAR, problematics of the concept of empowerment and on narratives were planned for this year. The discussion below identifies some of the issues faced by PARAPET as a learning organisation. Perhaps one of the challenges that the group faces in the future is to develop mechanisms for the different projects to become more persistent in their attempts to become study groups.

Objective 4: To promote the development of expertise in and a culture of participator y action research beyond the group, and to raise consciousness about the role it can play in educational, cultural and community development.

Arguably, PARAPET was most successful in achieving this aim. Four major activities of PARAPET have assisted in promoting the culture of action research within the educational community in the university, in associated schools and in South East Queensland generally. First, a series of six public seminars were conducted at the university on issues relevant to critical theory and action research. Two of these seminars were presented by overseas people visiting the university. Second, the appointment of Stephen Kemmis as an Adjunct Professor to the Faculty of Education enabled him to discuss action research matters with several researchers and postgraduate students embarking on various research studies. This appointment was the first collaborative appointment supported by three schools within the faculty. Third, a teachers’ conference was conducted in co-operation with PARAPET, the Queensland Board of Teacher Registration and the Valley School Support Centre.¹ At least sixty teachers from Queensland schools attended the conference helping to build networks among teachers, School Support Centre staff, board members and university staff with common research and development interests. Fourth, an advanced seminar subject on critical social practice was conducted within the Master of Education degree at QUT taught by Bill Atweh, Stephen Kemmis, Colin Lankshear and Merv Wilkinson. The seminar considered an extensive reading list of classical and modern writing on critical theory and action research and addressed concrete concerns arising in the action research projects of participants.

Some issues faced by PARAPET

We raise these issues here not because they are peculiar to PARAPET: such issues frequently arise in PAR work and PAR groups. On the other hand, by raising them for discussion, we may contribute to the critical and self-critical dialogue of participants as they consider the practice of PAR in their projects and the PARAPET network.

Issues concerning PARAPET as a network

Time

At the planning stage of the project many members may not have been consciously aware that joining a meta-project of the kind PARAPET aspired to be would require a significant time commitment. For example, participating in a PAR project might require something like half a day a week for much of a year; attending PARAPET-wide and project group meetings might require the equivalent of another half-day per month and preparing for and participating in conferences and workshops might require ten (or so) more days of writing, conference planning, attendance and editing of project publications in the course of a year. Taken together, this would be a substantial workload, though for most group members it would overlap with other existing aspirations and responsibilities. At times it was rather difficult to find a time slot where all interested members were able to attend the group meetings. However, we believe that it is unlikely that the time commitments for PARAPET excluded many potential participants, but it did add a new set of demands to most participants’ already busy lives and it prevented some from full participation in all meetings.

Being ‘central’ versus ‘peripheral’ to PARAPET

Naturally, it takes some effort, energy and resources to keep a project like PARAPET going (for example, calling meetings, distribution of not...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contributors
• Preface The Story of The Book
• Part 1: The Project
• Part 2: Common Themes
• Part 3: Partners in Change School-based projects and collaborations
• Part 4: Partners Supporting Schools Change
• Part 5: Partnerships Within the University
• Postscript