Action research PhDGerry Roberts -- Chapter 2
Action researching my practice as a facilitator of experiential learning with pastoralist farmers in Central West Queensland
Gerard Michael O’Brien Roberts
B.App.Sc. (Rur. Tech) (Hons); M.Sc. (Wool and An. Sc.)
Chapter 2 Methodology and methods
In this chapter I recount my reasons for choosing the methodology of action research and the methods used.
Section 2.1 My methodology
Section 2.1.1 Determining a methodology
Dick (1995), Graziano and Raulin (1993), Patton (1990), Morgan (1983a) and Burrell and Morgan (1979) cite a range of research approaches or methodologies available for inquiry in social situations. Guba and Lincoln (1989) and Burrell and Morgan (1979) both provide frameworks for decision-making for the choice of a methodology. They each agree that surfacing ontological and epistemological assumptions are the primary steps in determining the choices available from which to select a methodology for use in inquiry.
In this connection, an ontology represents a particular view of reality held about the situation in question. The above authors suggest two main ontological possibilities useful in decision-making about methodologies in inquiry. The first is that there is one reality and it is observable by an inquirer who has little if any impact on the object being observed. The second is that reality consists of an individual’s mental constructions of the objects with which they engage, and that the engagement impacts on the observer and the situation being observed. While able to be considered polar opposites these two possibilities can represent two points on a continuum of ontological assumptions, wherein intermediate positions related to specific situation are constructed by participants.
Whereas ontological assumptions concern the nature of reality, epistemology relates to how such assumptions can be known. The epistemology is the relationship assumed to be present between the knower and what is known or being sought to be known. It deals with assumptions about truth and non-truth. Burrell and Morgan (1979) suggest that the relationship can derive from accepting that knowledge can be either viewed as objectively knowable, or in contrast, only subjectively knowable. Guba and Lincoln (1989) support this suggestion. Their support is expressed as "... adherents of the constructivist paradigm ...[assert]... that it is impossible to separate the inquirer from the inquired into" (p88) while in the conventional paradigm "... adherents ...[assert]...that it is possible to maintain an objective ... posture ... with respect to the phenomenon being studied..." (p87) and that the inquirer’s values can be excluded. Burrell and Morgan (1979) and Guba and Lincoln (1989) agree that in social inquiry the subjective knowledge produces a subjective relationship between elements of the inquiry.
Kersten and Ison (1994) have referred to the benefit they gained from identifying their epistemology because of its influence on research design (methodology) and outcomes in their research in agricultural rangelands. They put their research into context by placing it within a constructivist epistemology.
Burrell and Morgan (1979) offer as a third dimension, human nature in identifying assumptions before reaching a position leading to suitable methodological choices. They suggest that there is an important distinction between the determination of human nature by outside forces and the notion that humans create their own environment.
Checkland (1985; 1991) presents an example of the application of this principle of surfacing assumptions for methodological choice in systems practice. He suggests a model in which the researcher uses a framework of ideas (F) to establish a methodology (M) to inquire into an area of application (A). His framework of ideas is inclusive of ontological and epistemological assumptions and he argues, along with Morgan (1983a) and Burrell and Morgan (1979), that researchers rarely identify their assumptions when making choices about methodology (Checkland 1991).
One who does identify his assumptions is Susman (1983 p107). He identifies the epistemological assumptions that he uses to produce knowledge about a system when researching, that is, he uses his assumptions to decide on a methodology. New (1995) is another who declares her ontological assumptions. She declares her own ontological position as the starting point to her argument when she calls for the declaration of ontological assumptions in the sociological aspects of environmental research.
However, while these are examples of researchers identifying their assumptions as they seek a methodology, there is a reported lack of attention to the assumptions of ontology and epistemology in sociology (Newby 1997). Newby refers to it as sociologists excluding themselves from the theories that they develop and relates it to the need for a reflexive sociology that relates subject and object. An example of this exclusion in rural sociology is Bealer’s (1990) response to suggestions of the need for increased paradigmatic diversity in rural sociology (Falk and Zhao 1989) by suggesting attention first to ‘method, technique and methodology’. In doing so he thus places methodology before the ontological and epistemological assumptions that Guba and Lincoln (1989) and Burrell and Morgan (1979) suggest should come before methodological choices.
Attention to ontological and epistemological assumptions leading to a choice of methodology seems to support the move sought by Harper (1991) away from methodological monism that occurs in rural sociology as is evidenced by Bealer’s response.
Oliga (1988) suggests that diverse methodological approaches in the field of systems study will come from exposing and exploring the methodological foundations of different approaches to inquiry. He argues (p90) that not exploring methodological foundations does not "... avoid methodological commitments: it only makes them uncritical and unreflexive".
Oliga (1988) is supported by Chisholm’s (1990) reference to the contradictory elements of action research in settings of mainstream and anti-sexist action research in education. She suggests that "Some characteristic shortcomings of action research projects result from avoiding rather than confronting (these) contradictory elements [divergent methodological and political discourses]." Jackson (1982) had earlier referred to a similar issue in relation to action researching.
Jackson (1982) and Oliga (1988) both suggest that in the social sciences the need for a well understood foundation for choosing a methodology is crucial. Jackson (1982) posits, "We need to be more aware of our theoretical preconceptions and the way these affect attempts to change the ‘real-world’".
Melrose (1996) proposes a similar need in curriculum research in education and she emphasises identification of the philosophical paradigms underpinning the research to clarify what can be known and how it can be known. Oliga (1988) offers the work of Jackson and Keys (1984) and Banathy (1984) as valuable in presenting a contingency-theory perspective for methodological selection because of its focus on the contextual appropriateness for arriving at a methodology. In doing so he cautions about the temptation to "naturalise" the dimensions of such an approach.
Such a caution may well add weight to the inclusion of the fundamentals of ontology, epistemology and human nature as referred to by Burrell and Morgan (1979) and Guba and Lincoln (1989), when choosing a methodology. These three fundamentals can provide access to the context of the situation in a way that is less likely to lead to "naturalisation" of the dimensions of inquiry into unalterable monism in methodology.
With those comments in mind it is appropriate for me to state my own perspectives at this point as a means of helping to make clear the foundation for my own methodological choice.
In the work reported here I made the following assumptions. Ontologically I assumed, while not denying an external reality, that the reality of inquiring into facilitating experiential learning with pastoralists will be the product of our various consciousnesses. This means that each person’s interpretation of what is occurring will be the ‘reality’ of our situation for them.
Epistemologically I assumed that while some information acquisition can come from others it is only by experiencing the learning in person that valuable knowledge is generated at a personal level. At the start of my project I made this assumption explicitly about the learning of the pastoralists. Upon reflection now, I realise that it is also true of my learning through facilitating their experiential learning.
In relation to the issue of human nature, my assumptions are that some external features can have some impact on individuals. However, in the main, we are each able to create our own interpretation of our social environment. In holding this position, I assume that it is our interaction with our environment that provides us with the knowledge and data we need to interpret and create it.
On the basis of my assumptions about ontology, epistemology and human nature, I was able to identify the features of a methodology that suited my inquiry. It had to allow me to deal with a social situation in which we as individuals interpret for ourselves the meaning of the experiences that we are having. It would need to allow for participation so that shared interpretations could be developed. The methodology had also to take into account the fact that these interpretations would be emerging as more experience accumulated and that experience would in turn determine the type of experience that followed. It would also need to provide ways of understanding how participants interpret and respond to their experiences. And finally, the methodology would need to provide ways of modifying the world or taking action in it.
In terms of the specifics of my researching the social system of facilitating experiential learning with pastoralists, any chosen methodology would need to accommodate:
- the fact that individuals would be making their own interpretation of their experience of using experiential learning,
- the emergence of new issues as experiences accumulated with these new issues contributing to what would happen as the project progressed,
- ways for me to understand how pastoralists would be experientially learning and my facilitation of that for them, and
- ways of taking action to modify behaviour in response to the knowledge gained through the experiences of learning.
Converting these items into features I required of a methodology for inquiring into the social system of my facilitating experiential learning with pastoralists, the features were:
- to provide opportunities in real life situations for pastoralists to experience experiential learning and my facilitation of it;
- to allow pastoralists to participate in framing and interpreting the experience of being facilitated in experiential learning, so that their participation contributed to their and my understanding of the situation;
- to interpret the experience that we each have for its "meaning";
- to be responsive to that "meaning" so that it led to further experiences that would expand our understanding of my facilitation of experiential learning;
- to identify opportunities to alter facilitation through testing emerging assumptions;
- to support the emergence of issues and outcomes related to the social system of my facilitation of experiential learning with pastoralists; and
- to permit my continuous interaction with the literature during field work and write-up.
My choice of action research as the preferred approach to my work reflected the necessity to accommodate features. I return later in the chapter to address the use of action research in the project after first considering action research as a methodology.
Section 2.1.2 Action research as a methodology
Dick (1995) summarises his interpretation of the most effective research methodology as one that generates data and interpretations appropriate to a given context. Graziano and Raulin (1993) make a similar suggestion when referring to situations where the control of variables is impractical or unethical.
Action research is useful in ‘real’ concrete situations. It is useful where change and understanding is sought in a situation in which it is usually too difficult to control variables because the situation is concrete, complex and on-going (Dick 1995; Susman 1983). Action provides change and research provides understanding. Dick (1995) and Susman (1983), as well as Altrichter (1990), refer to the use of action research by practitioners, as opposed to researchers, to develop responses in complex situations that are uncontrollable in any conventional research sense.
The methodology of action research is a cyclic form of self-reflective inquiry. It is used in social situations by the participants, to improve their own practice and the understanding of their practice and the situation (Carr and Kemmis 1986). Winter’s (1996 p14) description of action research is similar and in his words "Action research ... refers to ways of investigating professional experience which link practice and the analysis of practice into a single productive and continuously developing sequence ..." Altrichter et al (1990) describe it as people reflecting upon and improving their practice by tightly interlinking their reflection and action. This is the ‘intrasubjective’ element of action researching referred to by Lomax and Parker (1995). Altrichter et al (1990) add that it includes making their experiences public to other people concerned by and interested in the particular practice and this is the ‘intersubjective’ element (Lomax and Parker 1995).
Dick (1995) refers to action research methodology as a cyclic progression from fuzzy questions through fuzzy methods to fuzzy answers to less fuzzy questions, methods and answers. The key elements are the cyclic acting and reflecting before acting again in a continuing response to learning outcomes from reflection. Action research provides confidence in outcome through the checking and refining of data and interpretations.
This key element of cyclic activity described above provides rigour. Recognition of this comes from a number of authors (Dick 1995, 1995a; Zuber-Skerritt 1993; Oja and Smulyan 1989; Carr and Kemmis 1986; Heron 1985). Dick (1995a) suggests that the way in which cyclic activity provides for rigour and thus validity is through:
- the collection and interpretation of data in each research cycle before testing both data and interpretation in later cycles;
- seeking to disconfirm emerging interpretations in each cycle;
- critiquing and refining methods of reflection and action in each cycle;
- seeking out divergent data to challenge other data already collected.
Furthermore, he suggests that the literature provides an additional source of disconfirmatory evidence as does the process of implementing emergent changes from the action researching.
I believe action research provides the features (Section 2.1.1) I sought in a methodology because:
- my facilitation of pastoralists’ experiential learning would be a ‘real’ concrete social situation in which variables would be difficult to control;
- the cycles of action and reflection provide for data collection and interpretation of the experiences by all participants;
- the reflection phases enables me to develop understanding and respond with actions that further understanding of facilitation of experiential learning;
- its reflection phases enables me to determine ways in which I could seek disconfirming evidence and challenging data;
- its cyclic nature enables me to identify and implement action to change my facilitation of experiential learning;
- its inquiry nature supports the emergence of issues and outcomes that generate increasing clarity of the social system of my facilitation of experiential learning with pastoralists;
- it provides for flexibility in response to emergent issues and learning outcomes and permits me to use my data and its interpretation to choose future action for testing.
While these features generate positive outcomes for action research, I recognise that there are other aspects that I have forgone by accepting these features as appropriate to my needs. I have forgone the precise outcome possible when controlling some variables while examining one or more others. I recognise that I will be unable to replicate the implementation of action plans made in response to my interpretations. Finally, I understand that I will be developing outcomes that have local rather than universal relevance, at least in the first instance. Dick (1990;1993) refers to these as ‘trade off’ type features, while Susman (1983) recognises them less directly in his writing, through recognising the use of action research to provide change in local ‘concrete’ situations. This is also evident in the writing of Kemmis (1990) whose local situation is education and Zuber-Skerritt (1990a) whose local situation is professional development. What these authors are maintaining is that, in social situations that are complex and changeable, the flexibility and responsiveness of action research outweigh ‘trade offs’ by producing understanding and change.
Part of the reason for needing ‘trade offs’ comes from the qualitative type of data that usually yields understanding and responsiveness in complex social situations. The constructivist/interpretivist position assumed by me provides for interpretation based on individuals’ mental constructions of their experiences. Guba and Lincoln (1989) recognise that this is available in its least restricted form as qualitative data, as do Graziano and Raulin (1993) and Dick (1990b). Additionally Patton (1990), Dick (1990b) and Guba and Lincoln (1989) acknowledge the advantage that quantitative data offer where variable control is possible and warranted and they note the complementary nature of the two where applicable. However they also suggest that qualitative data in applied, concrete, real world situations is often most relevant. Its relevance in Patton’s (1990 p13) terms is that "Approaching field work without the restraints of predetermined categories of analysis contributes to the depth, openness, and detail ..."
In relation to methodological choice I am aware of examples where researchers used and then questioned their use of, and the effectiveness of, action research as a methodology. Two such examples are Simonson and Bushaw (1993) and Vakil (1994). Simonson and Bushaw (1993) describe how two action researchers failed to create participatory processes matched to their action researching goals of involving the community in research for change. Vakil (1994) reports a similar situation that led her to suggest the importance of contextual understanding when choosing action research as a methodology. The interpretations made by these authors have come about through their intrasubjective and intersubjective engagement with action research (Lomax and Parker 1995).
However, when examining my developing understanding of action research I understood that it provided a suitable methodology for researching the issue of my facilitation of pastoralists’ experiential learning. It offered that in a way that allowed qualitative data to lead to action in the complexity of the situation. This meant that it was possible for me to simultaneously seek improvement in the situation and in my practice in the situation.
Examples of action researching in complex agricultural situations with farmers are available. Webber (1993a) worked with pastoralists of the wool industry in western New South Wales. She refers to continuing activities of reflection and sharing of interpretations to develop meanings and from this, understanding. She writes of ‘action taking’ and its interpretation experientially for planning the next action. She recognises that a ‘trade off’ of the action research methodology she describes, is its local focus and, for that reason, suggests that the outcomes are not a recipe for replication.
In another example Gamble et al (1995 p18) provide their paradigmatic assumptions about the agricultural setting of their work, as suggested by Guba and Lincoln (1989) and Burrell and Morgan (1979). They do so when they clearly state that their research is "... located within an interpretivist or constructionist research paradigm ..." They refer to the benefits they gained from using an action research methodology because of its relevance to their operations in ‘real world’ situations where participation produced the major source of knowledge and action produced improvement. They refer particularly to the understanding gained by researchers and participants about the situation to enable the taking of action. As well they highlight the emergent nature of action researching in developing an inquiry with the people involved in the complex social system of farm businesses and farm transfer between generations.
I referred in this section to my methodology and the fact that I chose action research. I explained how it reflected my surfaced assumptions relating to ontology, epistemology and human nature. I also argued that I had chosen action research because it allowed for emergent issues as well as the development of understanding and action. In discussing the match between my research requirements and an action research methodology I referred to its capacity for rigour based on cycles and its allowance for qualitative data to contribute depth, openness and detail in understanding. I concluded the section by giving examples of successful action research projects in agriculture. In the next section I provide a model of my general methodology and its application.
Section 2.1.3 Diagrammatic representations of my action research methodology
Figure 2.1 A diagrammatic representation of my action research methodology
In Figure 2.1 above, the cyclic nature of my action research methodology is quite apparent, while in Figure 2.2 overleaf, this overall framework is extended to include details of the sequential research cycles. In Figure 2.2 the cycles begin with planning in the lower right hand corner.
Section 2.2 The methods of my project
I used three major categories of methods of inquiry as I sought appropriate action in my project work. The first category was based on the concept of action research, the second that of experiential learning and the third that of action learning. In this section I refer to each category and provide a description as the basis of my use of each as a method. Additionally, the descriptions contain material that show the structural and conceptual linkages between the three categories. The linkages were a factor in my choosing these methods. As methods, their descriptions support my understanding that they are sufficiently unconstrained to provide flexibility in response to emerging issues.
Section 2.2.1 Action research
Researchers have used action research methods in a variety of research arenas for dealing with issues presented in people’s daily activity. In organisational development these include French and Bell (1995), Whyte et al (1991), Checkland (1991) and Argyris and Schon (1991). Zuber-Skerritt (1990), Eizenberg (1990), Kemmis and McTaggart (1988a; 1988b). Carr and Kemmis (1986) and Grundy (1982) refer to it for educational settings. Gamble et al (1995), Turnbull (1993), Webber (1993), Bawden (1991) and Whyte (1991) refer to agricultural settings. Of particular note is Sommer’s (1990) application of action research in local, participative community research.
Kemmis and McTaggart (1988b p7) present a contemporary description of the action research method. They attribute their model as having evolved from the work of Lewin (1946), but existing now in a more developed form. They recognise that action research provides a framework for developing ideals, that is, it provides a research approach. As well, they suggest it offers "... a concrete procedure for translating evolving ideals into critically informed action" where in their case the concrete procedure, ideals, and critically informed action relate to the social situation of education.
Kemmis and McTaggart (1988b) describe the four phases of planning, acting, observing and reflecting following the identification of the initial thematic concern or problem. The initial cycle of these four activities leads to a second cycle in which the reflections of the previous cycle inform the plan. Zuber-Skerritt (1990; 1996) suggests the same phases as relevant for professional development while Dick (1995) emphasises that the "... two very important features of action research are its cyclic nature and the use of regular critical reflection."
In agricultural settings, Webber (1993) and Turnbull (1993) present the same basic cycle of designing/planning, acting, observing the outcomes that follow and critically reflecting upon them. Each presents the approach as a useful way of operating with a range of farmer groups to achieve change.
French and Bell (1995 p145) describe their model for organisational development as ".... diagnosis, data gathering, feedback to the client group, data discussion and work by the client group, action planning and action" while stating that it is practitioners and not just researchers who use action research. This is supported by the work of Dick (1994; 1995) and Susman (1983).
French and Bell (1995), Sommer (1987) and Grundy (1982) recognise that many subjects form the focus of action researching. Grundy (1982 p23) submits that
"... action research may be applied in the service of a variety of world views." A particular example of action research used in a successful project is that of Israel et al (1992) who used a method involving diagnosing, action planning, ‘action taking’, evaluating and specifying learning, in improving a situation involving occupational stress.
From the examples of descriptions given here it seems that foundationally there are four elements in descriptions of action research. The commonest cycle, described above, has the four elements of planning, acting, observing and reflecting and on examination the other cycles are quite similar. The cyclic nature of the process is referred to as well. Thus it seems that action research can be located in a tradition of research that pursues improvement through planning, acting, observing and reflecting in connected cycles of this process.
There were two ‘streams’ in which I applied action research in this project. The first ‘stream’ involved research to improve my capabilities as an extension officer introducing experiential learning to pastoralists. The second involved the development of the skills of experiential learning by pastoralists through attention to an issue of relevance to them.
In each stream, I followed the cyclic action research method of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. The two streams are presented in Table 2.1 as they relate to the key attributes of action research presented by Grundy and Kemmis (1988).
|
|
STREAM I |
STREAM II |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myself and pastoralists |
|
The extension officer stream (Stream I) consisted of connected cycles of planning, acting, observing, reflecting as illustrated in Figure 2.2. The development of skills by pastoralists stream (Stream II) was characterised by a larger number of shorter cycles. Situations in Stream II were improved using connected cycles and the cycles of each stream overlapped. These two streams are like the ‘two action research projects’ process proposed for research Masters and Doctoral students by Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1992) and referred to at the start of Chapter 1.
Section 2.2.2 Experiential learning
Kolb (1984) presents experiential learning as a four stage cycle involving concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation. It appears to be no coincidence that there are similarities between this concept of experiential learning and that of action researching as Kurt Lewin is considered to be an important contributor to the development of both action research (Argyris 1983; Kemmis and McTaggart 1988b) and experiential learning (Kolb 1984).
A conceptual relationship between experiential learning and action research is understandable as both provide tools for change. Lewin’s (1952) four-phase action research process is planning, fact-finding, execution and reconnaissance in connected cycles. Kolb’s (1984) four-phase experiential learning process is experiencing a concrete situation, reflectively observing it, developing abstract conceptualisations from these reflections and identifying areas for active experimentation to test these ideas in subsequent iterations.
An example of the link between action research and experiential learning is presented by Eizenberg (1990) in his work to improve the teaching of anatomy to medical students. He describes his action research project as including smaller cycles within the framework of the major cycles (Eizenberg 1990) and then discusses how he dealt with these issues. However, it is not the plan - act - observe - reflect model that he describes, but rather the Kolbian model of experiential learning.
Kolb (1984 p21) expressed the link as, "In the techniques of action research and the laboratory method, learning, change, and growth are seen to be facilitated best by an integrated process that begins with here-and-now experience followed by collection of data and observations about that experience. The data are then analysed and the conclusions of this analysis are fed back to the actors in the experience for their use in the modification of their behaviour and choice of new experiences."
Action research is the connecting of cycles of experiential learning focused on a particular situation. The learning outcomes of each cycle provide input to the next. To the extent that action researching and experiential learning are different it is that whereas experiential learning is conceived as the process by which experience is transformed into knowledge as a basis for personal adaptation to a changed situation, action researching is about taking action for intended change in a situation and learning about the nature of the change. Thus action research and experiential learning can be interpreted as a single phenomenon described from different perspectives. Bawden (pers comm) refers to action research as a particular form of experiential learning which reflects (a) shared learning, (b) the disposition of the learner(s) and (c) deliberate change as a source of the experience. Bawden also argues that where experiential learning proceeds from the concrete to the abstract, action researching does the opposite. This argument appears as conformity of stylisation to each process. Figure 4.3 diagrammatically presents an interpretation of the cycles of experiential learning and their connection to form an action researching sequence.
Experiential learning provided a focus for skill development by pastoralists in my project and in this learning process I sought to investigate change through action research with pastoralists. My intent was to increase pastoralists’ self-reliance through having them develop skills as experiential learners.
Section 2.2.3 Action learning
Action learning is a particular structural approach directed to learning in a social setting wherein questions from others form an important part of the activity. It was developed by Revans (1982a) who describes its attributes as ‘learning with and from each other’, ‘foreseeing future problems’ and ‘using yesterday’s wisdom well’. He also refers to ‘choosing questions to lead to action when all that is apparent is uncertainty and the person’s sense of their own feelings is that of ignorance and anxiety’. He refers to the help that is offered in the social activity of action learning as being ‘debate’ based on questions and leading to ‘the direction’ in which to move. He also calls for the action learning process to be unconstrained with expansion of understanding through engagement in the process rather than rules for its use (Revans 1991a).
McGill and Beaty (1992) write about action learning as "... a continuous process of learning and reflection, supported by colleagues, with an intention of getting things done." Through action learning, individuals learn with and from each other by working on real problems. Time is allocated for reflection so that action learning links the natural processes of learning, with a "questioning" based structure being utilised to ensure that it happens.
In Action Learning in Vocational Education and Training (Anon 1995) similar statements are made about the method. The "Revans’ equation" L = P + Q is interpreted as learning (L) including both programmed knowledge (P) and questioning insight (Q). It introduces both experience and creativity to learning. Q is the principal interest of action learning and is about facilitating new ways of thinking through questioning current thinking and assumptions about the issue at hand (Anon 1995).
Action learning introduces structure to social learning. The structure includes interaction with others, so that the richness of data available for reflection is enhanced. As well, action learning seeks action as an outcome of the learning. When done rigorously, action learning provides a way of ensuring reflection as a part of social learning (Frank 1997) - learning through interaction with others. In this way it conforms to the advocacy by Habermas (1973) of therapeutic dialogue (i.e. talking with others) as the way to ensure higher quality reflection. Habermas maintains that self-reflection alone can be misleading. The incorporation of others into reflection activities is a theme common to documents referring to reflection (see Boud et al, 1985). Pedler and Boydell (1985) refer to the paradox of self-management requiring input from others, as do Dick and Dalmau (1991) in their use of the Johari window in personal development. The possibility of the social aspects of action learning providing for effective reflection and the potential for the development of new concepts about problematic situations was an important consideration in developing my project. Furthermore, I perceived it as having the potential for individuals to form sets based on their need in a specific situation. This has since been referred to as "... participant led ..." set formation (Webber and O’Hara 1997, p21) and reported "... to offer the most valuable learning opportunities."
The preceding description of action learning as an inquiry method, identifies action learning as a form of experiential learning but distinguishes it from the classic Kolbian model. The emphasis in action learning is on developing social interactions between individuals involved in similar activities as the structure for reflectively questioning existing thinking about situations, and then uses the learning outcomes as the basis for personal adaptation or change. It is the social and questioning aspects of action learning together with the potential for participant initiation of sets that drew my attention to it as a focus for developing self-reliance among pastoralists.
In this section, the three methods of inquiry that formed the foundation of my action researching approach to the facilitation of experiential learning with pastoralists were presented as different perspectives of the same inquiry phenomenon. I referred to experiential learning as an inquiry method characterised as a single cycle of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. I referred to the action research method of inquiry as connected cycles of planning, acting, observing, reflecting. To complete the section I described the inquiry process of action learning with particular attention to its social aspects and questioning elements. In combination the three methods provide for flexibility and diversity of response to emerging issues while maintaining a coherent underlying rationale and framework.
Section 2.3 Summary
In this chapter I outlined the ontological, epistemological and human nature assumptions that led to my choice of action research as the methodology. I also identified the features I believed a methodology to guide facilitation of experiential learning with pastoralists needed. I then explored the match between the features I sought and action research as my chosen methodology. I concluded the chapter by describing and discussing to the three major methods of inquiry I used in my project, those of action research, experiential learning and action learning. In the next chapter I detail the events and issues (experiences) of my research project.
Converted to hypertext by Bob Dick; last modified 20000110
The URL of
this document is
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/t-groberts02.html
