Action Research in Higher Education: Methods and Applications

Introduction to Action Research

Conducting a scientific inquiry requires a highly formalized process outfitted with proper controlling mechanisms, clearly identified goals, and a design intended to prevent unwanted changes in the character of its major variables. This is called the research process and, as the primary text by Dick (2000) notes, it is an essential part of driving theoretical discourse and establishing usable findings. However, as Dick also notes, this is not always the most appropriate framework through which to approach a research problem. Often, the context in which findings are sought may be in a constant state of flux — always evolving, and sometimes shifting dramatically according to unexpected events or the emergence of unpredicted needs on the part of a studied population. It is this unique research challenge that informed the advent of Action Research. According to Ferrance (2007), Kurt Lewin coined this term to address an evolving research problem during his professorial tenure at MIT (p. 7).

According to Lewin's landmark article published in the Journal of Social Issues in 1946, certain research problems with direct implications in a broader social sphere may be too fluid and multidimensional to truly understand within the confines of the formal research process. It is thus that Lewin proposed a method of planning, action, and searching which he called Action Research (Ferrance, p. 7). Lewin initially used this as a way of measuring certain patterns and trends concerning racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequality. This set of concerns is referred to as "minority problems" in his initial research and demonstrates a clear need for a deconstruction of traditionally controlled research methods for investigation in contexts where factors cannot be controlled. We are thus delivered a research mode in which, rather than controlling factors to conform to the design of the research, the research design achieves a high level of malleability so that it may conform to the needs suggested by observed variables. This inversion of the research process allows for adjustment, accommodation, and pragmatism in contexts where restrictive modes of research might be essentially useless, irrelevant, or outdated by the time of their delivery.

As the research discussion below demonstrates, this approach has proven extremely valuable in such fields as higher education. The college or university is itself an institution highly subject to sociological trends and patterns; to conditions of socioeconomic distribution; to changing demographics where ethnic diversity is concerned; to evolution in curriculum and pedagogy as ethnocentric tendencies are overcome; to changes in pedagogy based on both student and professorial cultures; and to a host of other features that are in too great a state of flux to be usefully measured by formal research. This justifies the discussion below on the modes, methods, and implications of action research within the field of higher education. The review of literature and discussion that follow reinforce the view that action research is a necessary alternative to formal research and that findings produced from such research are inherently valuable to a field in such constant flux as higher education.

Defining and Understanding Action Research

Before proceeding to a discussion of the different forms and methodologies that apply to Action Research, it is useful to establish a comprehensive definition for this mode of theoretical inquiry. A useful starting point is Dick's text, which reports on the "cyclic" nature of action research. Such a perspective extends the sequence of planning, action, and searching offered by Lewin, arguing that "action research is cyclic, or at least spiral in structure. To put this differently, certain more-or-less similar steps tend to recur, in more-or-less similar order, at different phases of an action research study. At the same time (so the action researcher hopes) progress is made towards appropriate action and research outcomes. A commonly known cycle is that of the influential model of Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) mentioned earlier — plan, act, observe, reflect; then, in the light of this, plan for the next cycle" (Dick, p. 1).

This denotes that the process which enters into action research is intended to exist on something of a continuous loop. Whereas traditional research tends to work toward an end goal — and in many cases subjects outcomes to incrementally scheduled evaluations — action research remains in a ready state of both implementation and evaluation. These exist in supplement to one another, with evaluation often merging seamlessly into the next planning stage. This allows researchers to raise hypotheses in the midst of an observation process and to consequently test those hypotheses, whether by simple observation or by the isolation of certain observable subjects or traits. As Dick indicates, this makes Action Research extremely flexible and therefore useful across a wide array of contexts. Particularly, Dick argues that this makes Action Research inherently sensible for preliminary or pilot research in a subject area, as the nature of ongoing findings helps to produce many new directions for more controlled research investigation.

It is also worth noting that Dick's discussion takes on greater conceptual importance when he argues in favor of inherently "fuzzy" research questions and methods at the outset of the action research process. Sometimes, the author argues, the hazy state of available knowledge on a given research subject may justify — and even demand — less precise and therefore less restrictive research preconditions. That said, Dick also indicates that several key features of traditional research should be maintained in order to validate action research findings. Namely, he argues that the research method should at least be framed empirically so that findings cannot be proposed on the basis of logical fallacy. Additionally, Dick indicates that critical assessment of gathered evidence is a key process regardless of whether the research is conducted traditionally or according to action research principles.

Dick describes action research as most typically cast within the context of qualitative research measures. As Dick indicates, though there is a clear value in deriving research from quantifiable outcomes, "sometimes numbers are not easily applied to some features of a study. If these include features of particular interest or importance, the choice is between qualitative research or omitting important features. In addition, developing a suitable quantitative measure is often difficult and time-consuming. It may be more time-efficient to use qualitative data. . . . It is also easier to be flexible and responsive to the situation if you are using qualitative methods" (Dick, p. 1).

Cyclic Structure and Qualitative Methods

Though quantitative methods may be used in combination with qualitative ones, Dick appears to suggest that the flexibility and responsiveness sought from action research are inherently best suited by qualitative investigation. Indeed, he goes on to indicate that responsiveness may very well be the key attribute distinguishing good action research, and that all aspects of the methodology selected to execute this research should reflect this ambition. This is, in fact, the reason a more cyclic understanding of action research has emerged in more recent manifestations of the discussion — based on the view that responsiveness to findings is the only way to keep them current to changing patterns and research scenarios. Here, we are also given another cause to view action research as sometimes preferable to more controlled modes of research that do not allow for this type of immediacy in response to research-yielded findings. As a result, many such findings become static and quickly outdate themselves. To this point, Dick indicates that "in many field settings it is not possible to use more traditional quasi-experimental research methods. They can't readily be adjusted to the demands of the situation. If you do alter them in midstream you may have to abandon the data collected up to that point. (This is because you have probably altered the odds under the null hypothesis.) But to achieve both action and research outcomes requires responsiveness — to the situation, and the people, and the growing understanding on the part of those involved" (p. 1).

This is to suggest that where the findings of traditional research may be looked upon as an end goal, action research views its findings as assumptions that must be immediately reapplied to a contextualized environment. If preconditions and research questions are too stringent at the outset of a research process, researchers might proceed with a misconception about when field intervention is expected to end, when the research process will be said to have reached its stated goals, and what the general scope of a research endeavor actually is.

The collection of these features has rendered action research a preferred method of internal review for institutions of higher education. Many such institutions have come to recognize the value of a research approach that allows changes in process, procedure, and philosophy while remaining in place to monitor those changes. As this applies to the nature of education and the practice of pedagogy, research supports the notion that there is something of an inherency in this relationship. Indeed, it may be argued that action research is uniquely suited to the conditions within the classroom. So reports the text by Ferrance, which indicates that "action research is a process in which participants examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully, using the techniques of research. It is based on the following assumption . . . teachers and principals work best on problems they have identified for themselves" (p. 1).

The implication here is that the constant state of flux revealed by day-to-day activities within a course — and in interaction between professor, students, content, and other entities — justifies the use of a research framework that is similarly mutable. As Ferrance argues, the improvement of one's own practice of education may well be based on the ability of the instructor to evolve in harmony with an evolving understanding of community systems, social networks, cultural inclinations, and academic parameters that shape conditions such as student performance, class participation, completion of assignments, and academic integrity. Because of the state of responsiveness and flexibility inherent to action research, Ferrance indicates that cross-breeding of findings between instructors is also extremely valuable. Unique to this mode of research is the receptiveness of an existing research process to findings from an external research process. Ferrance argues that "working with colleagues helps teachers and principals in their professional development" (p. 1).