Action research PhDGerry Roberts -- Chapter 3
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 3 An overview of the events, issues arising and concepts explored in the three cycles of action research
Section 3.1 Introduction
In Chapter 1 I outlined the arguments that I wish to develop in this thesis. In this chapter I put the events and related issues of the ‘fieldwork’ of my action researching into a time-sequence. The events and related issues depicted here are the ones that provided for the emergence of my learning outcomes and thus my central arguments. These emerged either during the experiences themselves and my immediate reflection on them, or during the reflections that have been a critical aspect of my thesis writing.
I began this project while I was a sheep and wool industry extension officer with the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) in central western Queensland. My role necessitated that the focus be on an issue or issues directly related to that industry.
My initial funding came through the then Wool Research and Development Corporation (WRDC) for a project called ‘Group Action Learning and Networks for Technology Transfer’(Roberts 1991). It incorporated a focus on technology and its transfer to pastoralists. However, individuals and their learning was my main focus. For me it was my initial step in determining how I, as a sheep and wool extension officer, could put into practice the concept of facilitating the development of experiential learning skills by pastoralists.
The project material is in five tables:
- The time relationships between the action research cycles in the project (Table 3.1).
- The period leading-up to the group activities in the project (Table 3.2).
- The first action research cycle of the project with the first group of pastoralists (Table 3.3).
- The second action research cycle with a second group of pastoralists (Table 3.4).
- The third action research cycle that evolved with the second group of pastoralists (Table 3.5).
The material related to the project’s events, issues and concepts, is presented in tables with minimal additional text. Some detail is sacrificed to make it easier to track the sequence of events and issues. In later chapters I provide more detail of specific situations.
Section 3.2 The time relationships between the action research cycles of the project
To provide an overall time perspective on the three cycles of action research Table 3.1 places each cycle in an approximate time relationship.
Table 3.1 The relative, overall time relationship
between the sequences of cycles 1, 2 and 3
CYCLE 1
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 3
Cycle 1 begins with sessions on experiential learning.
We regularly reflect on our use of the experiential learning cycle.
I plan for the second group in cycle 2. I perceive pastoralists' descriptions of the experiential learning process as ‘boring’.
Pastoralists raise a, ‘You have a map, but it's in your pocket’ issue, telling of my non-transparent process.
To reduce the ‘boringness’ mentioned by Westland pastoralists I begin cycle 2 with less time spent to develop pastoralists understanding of experiential learning.
The issue of ‘directing pastoralists to an outcome of my choice’ arises in my reflection.
I reflect to change my understanding of participation through seeking congruency in my action theories. Following this, pastoralists show significant learning outcomes about wool issue.
Cycle 2 concluded following input from cycle 1 where my learning outcome about being directive arose.
We review direction and change to current local issues (CLIs).
We began cycle 3 with attention to process transparency and more congruent theories of action of participation.
I explore ‘boring’ to find that my facilitation confuses pastoralists.
We develop action learning processes.
Reflection to conclude cycle 1 supports use of original experiential learning process by pastoralists. It also highlights the value of early relationship building.
We use a process to explore self-esteem once, but not as a learning focus about relationships.
Several pastoralists bring real CLIs and exhibit double loop learning.
CYCLE 1
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 3
Pastoralists support my bringing a problematic situation as a learner in the group.
Two pastoralists bring CLIs about already made decisions and two others bring non-real CLIs.
The concept begins to emerge that relationships contribute to the authenticity of information exchanged.
We produce a wool pamphlet.
Reflection to conclude cycle 3 finds no support for pastoralists initiating action learning as a process with other pastoralists.
Thesis writing reflection provides abstract conceptualisations and foci for active experimentation.
The items in Table 3.1 are events of significance in my action researching. In particular they show the emergence of changes in my facilitation related to participation and collaboration, transparency and relationships. The table represents the thesis action research project as suggested by Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1992) and which I refer to as Stream I of my project. The following tables in this chapter present more material on events depicted in Table 3.1.
Section 3.3 The lead-up to the project
Because events prompted issues to which I refer, or the issues prompted events, they are displayed in parallel columns (in Tables 3.2 to 3.5). The events occurring and the issues raised, often led me to reflect on certain concepts aligned with them and they are presented in third column. Exploration of these concepts in the literature complemented my reflections and contributed to my plans for action. Items in the same row in different columns occurred at about the same time. Dotted horizontal lines are used to denote specific events and their accompanying issues and concepts. The events shown and the issues arising represent situations that formed part of the planning, acting, observing and reflecting phases of connected action research cycles (Zuber-Skerritt 1993). They thus portray the phases of action researching that I undertook in the project. In later chapters I provide more detail about specific situations.
The development of the device of a three column table to convey this material began with my need to provide concise information that put the activities of the cycles of action research into context. A suggested way of accessing the information in the tables is to first develop an appreciation of the sequence of events in column one and then return to the start of the table and read across to develop an understanding of the interplay between the events, issues and concepts.
In the initial establishment phase of the project I conducted a broad investigation of the agricultural system in the central west of Queensland. I also established a project group with three other DPI extension officers who expressed interest in the approach. Reference to these two aspects of the project is in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. The lead-up exploratory phase and establishment of the project
THE EVENTS
THE ISSUES ARISING AT THE TIME
THE CONCEPTS EXPLORED
Winter 1991
My proposal to examine the concept of having pastoralists acquire and use the skills of experiential learning received funding from the Australian Wool Corporation funding body.
Why don't extension responses satisfy pastoralists’ identified needs?
What is the link between an individual’s learning and the transfer of technology?
What role can extension play in promoting learning skills?
Spring 1991 and Summer 1991/1992
With two others I reflected on the local agricultural system. We identified its participants.
I planned to interview participants from each category.
I acted to conduct the series of interviews.
I reflected on the material generated to remain with the view that individual pastoralists and their learning forms a useful starting point.
Who are the people in the agricultural system of central west Queensland?
Who has an impact on pastoralists’ learning skills?
Interviewing (Minichielleo 1990; Dowsett 1987)
Winter/spring 1992
I formed a project group with three other DPI extension officers. We planned how our group would operate.
Negotiating with extension officers about our involvement.
We discussed action research and accepted it as the most useful methodology for our activity.
We planned and acted to use action learning and experiential learning principles in our project group activities.
We need to take action to decide the foundation of our work.
How can our project group enact in our operations, the principles that we espouse in relation to learning?
Experiential learning (Kolb 1984).
Action research (Bawden 1990; Altrichter 1990; Zuber-Skerritt 1990).
Action learning (Revans 1982; Participation in Second World Congress on Action Learning 1992).
We used convergent interviewing to identify ‘lack of control of wool marketing by woolgrowers’, as currently important to pastoralists.
Our aim is to support pastoralists to respond as they choose.
It is necessary to sample to include diversity. We need to develop our interpretation skills.
Convergent interviewing (Dick 1987a).
Section 3.4 The first action research cycle of my project
I began my ‘field work’ with pastoralists in the Longreach district in the summer of 1992. Table 3.3 lists the events that ensued.
‘Issues arising at the time’ are in the central column. It contains issues that became the focus of shorter cycles of action research that occurred within the three longer cycles of action research. They represent issues on which I, or pastoralists and I, acted to seek improvement through action research. These issues are identified here because they are referred to in later chapters. The nature of the issue is represented in the table by the following symbols. They provide a means of tracking the shorter cycles of action research:
+ My reflection activities.+++ Taking action as a part of learning.
* Attending to the need to develop new concepts as a part of learning.
** Developing our group reflection skills.
*** Developing my facilitation skills for learning situations.
# Making process transparent to participants.
Table 3.3 A representation of the events, issues and concepts relevant
to the first action research cycle of my project with pastoralists
THE EVENTS
THE ISSUES ARISING AT THE TIME
THE CONCEPTS EXPLORED
Summer 1992/1993
I invited one grazier from each management team contacted to be involved in a group. The group is to operate differently - learning, self-help - in relation to the issue, ‘The role that I as a Longreach woolgrower can play in marketing my wool’. I told them of my doctoral study.
There is a need to provide for free and informed choice about involvement.
Negotiation to settle logistic details.
Group formation and group processes (Dick 1987).
Inviting for group involvement (Macadam pers comm; Dick pers comm).
We conducted a one-off activity to develop good relations to start the group that was now the Westland group.
Good relationships contribute to useful group operation.
Group processes (Dick 1987).
I began our program with four sessions over five weeks to experientially introduce pastoralists to experiential learning.
Experiential learning (Kolb 1984).
One member of my DPI project group attended the initial sessions and participated in subsequent reflection and planning.
+ Understanding my reflection and planning needs in action researching.
Reflection (Boud et al 1985).
I provided specific techniques for exploration, analysis, bridging the concept development gap and deciding.
* I believe creating opportunities to think differently and develop new concepts is a part of experiential learning.
As a facilitator, I should model learning.
Experiential learning process techniques (UWS(H) Ag Pak LS6; Macadam pers comm).
I acted to structure group reflections through painting and structured discussion.
** Our reflection after the first session was unstructured and my observation was of a low level of participation.
Reflection (Boud et al 1985).
From their activities using the learning cycle, pastoralists identified their individual directions for action about our wool issue.
Participative processes (Spencer 1989).
Autumn/Winter/Spring 1993 and Summer 1993/1994
We had eight other sessions over 12 months as a group.
We periodically reflected on our activities in relation to their link to the experiential learning cycle.
*** I think that my facilitation can draw attention to learning and support new concept development.
Soft systems methodology and concept development (Checkland 1981).
As a group we reflected on pastoralists’ perception of nothing to do following meetings.
Seeking evidence to disconfirm or explain observations that some Westland members thought that they had nothing to do following meetings.
Pursuing cyclic activity (observe, reflect, plan, act, observe, reflect, plan, act) in relation to issues that arose.
Processes for testing researcher observations (Dick pers comm).
Identifying assumptions (Argyris et al 1985).
Pastoralists collected wool issue information and returned and shared it in the group.
I recorded reported instances of learning and its level.
We reflected as a group, on action and ‘action taking’ concepts.
+++ What does action mean in these situations with pastoralists?
Single and double loop learning (Argyris et al 1985).
I reflected with pastoralists about my procedure for initiating another group.
This produced the issue of pastoralists initially not knowing where we were going. The description was, ‘You have a map but it is in your pocket [where we can’t see it].’
Validation with the Westland group of my perceptions of how to invite participation in learning how to learn, can provide my basis for action.
Reconstructing events for reflection (Dick pers comm)
Pastoralists had difficulty preparing a mind map of their wool information to determine actions to take in relation to our wool issue.
What does the difficulty of getting the mindmap of wool information to flow outwards and focus on what individuals can do for themselves, mean for the way pastoralists' groups can experientially learn together?
Rich picturing and mind mapping (Davies and Ledington 1991); Models (Flood and Jackson 1991);
Critical reflection (Macadam pers comm).
A change occurred in my understanding of how I understood participation and collaboration. On that basis I sought to match my theories-in-use and my espoused theories of these practices.
My recognition that I was being directive and limiting pastoralists in their decisions. I should act on ways to overcome my perception of the necessity for a conventional outcome otherwise the project will fail. I need to show congruency in my theories of action of participation and collaboration.
Models for meaningful debate (Dick pers comm).
Facilitating learning for change (Macadam pers comm).
I reflected with the Westland group on my dilemma of believing we needed a ‘conventional outcome’ that others would see as appropriate rather than what they thought was relevant to them. This changed my understanding of how to facilitate to support new concept development. The outcome appeared to be more creative responses individually to our wool issue.
* As a researcher, I need to understand how to support the development of new concepts by pastoralists.
Is this dilemma about needing a ‘conventional outcome’ confined to me?
I reflected with Westland group about lack of transparency of process, ie having a map but in my pocket so others can't see it.
# There are learning outcomes I can gain from the pastoralists’ expressions of a lack of clarity of overall direction in our initial activities when introducing experiential learning.
Process transparency (Dick 1987; Dalmau and Dick 1992).
Reflected with the group on their meaning of ‘boring’ to arrive at the understanding that my facilitation created confusion for them.
Pastoralists brought together all the information on the wool issue and identified its meaning for their situations. That is, they reported their learning outcomes.
I reflected with pastoralists about our use of the experiential learning process and outcomes for them. The reflection was done in 3 ways: verbally as a group, through responding to written questions and in interviews with property management teams represented. There was support for the experiential learning process as we used it but with attention to problems specific to each pastoralist. As well, there was support for our early relationship building activity.
What have been the outcomes and overall changes in relation to learning and to the wool issue for pastoralists?
Mind mapping (Margulies 1992)
Semistructured interviewing (Minichielleo 1990)
Evaluation (Guba and Lincoln 1989).
Section 3.5 The second action research cycle of my project
Table 3.4 outlines the second cycle of my action research. Central to this cycle is the formation of a second pastoralists’ group. The invitation was for involvement in a group focussed on learning from experience, thinking differently, and self-help. This was to be achieved through attention to a wool industry issue.
Because I began this cycle before the completion of cycle one, there is an overlap of time and events between the two. (See Table 3.1 for details).
The format of the table is the same as that for Table 3.3 and the central column, ‘Issues arising at the time’, contains items that underwent the application of action research cycles within the project’s three larger cycles of action research. That is they were ‘cycles within cycles’. These are marked as follows:
+ My reflection activities.++ Improving our action learning practice.
* Attending to the need to develop new concepts as a part of learning.
*** Developing my facilitation skills for learning situations.
# Making process transparent to participants.
Table 3.4 The second action research cycle of my project work
THE EVENTS
THE ISSUES ARISING AT THE TIME
THE CONCEPTS EXPLORED
Spring 1993
I planned the process of initiating a new grazier group based on learning outcomes arising as cycle 1 was progressing.
I invited involvement based on material from Westland group on how to invite involvement.
Eight pastoralists accepted my invitation. One withdrew before attending the first session.
I need to make it possible for pastoralists to not accept my invitation. (A reflection of the power of my social role.)
I conducted the first of two, rather than four, experiential sessions to introduce experiential learning.
I wish to incorporate the ideas developed in reflection activities with the Westland group. They are:
a) The theory sessions were ‘boring’. [In response I chose to reduce the number from 4 to 2.]
b) Support people to ask what and why.
c) Clarify the purpose of each activity.
d) Make the exercises practical.
e) Keep attending to expanding pastoralists’ ways of thinking.
Learning and the experiential learning cycle (Kolb 1984; Bawden 1990).
Rich picturing (Davies and Ledington 1991).
Goal setting (Dick 1990).
I changed my approach in the second theory session to one of being more participative and collaborative. I did this because of my reflections on:
a) The evidence of my limiting creativity through ‘directing’ for my outcomes in Westland activities (cycle 1).
b) The issue raised at Westland, of my lack of clarity of our initial purpose in the theory sessions.
c) My purpose for the theory sessions was to have the pastoralists experience the skills that are experiential learning.
d) My observations of reactions by group members in the first theory session of group 2.
These reflections led to a changed approach for the second theory session.
If I was being directive and limiting creative concept development with the Westland group, is the same happening with group 2?
* Supporting personal, naturally emerging, and individual flexibility and creativity in group activities.
# I want to increase my openness to group input into process decisions and attention to transparency of process.
How can I use the understandings emerging in the continuing cycle one, to inform the second cycle?
The cyclic nature of action research (Zuber-Skerritt 1990).
New concept development (Macadam pers comm).
Fostering natural creativity (Bunning 1989; Edwards 1979).
Process transparency (Dick pers comm).
I conducted the second theory session with my changed perspective on participation and collaboration.
Group 2 chose their own session topic. Group expressed their understanding of our group focus as ‘thinking’, and naming themselves the Muttaburra Think Tank (MTT) group.
*** I should act to support group decision-making.
Facilitation.
I sought to attend to my problematic situation of improving process transparency through inviting discussion about an offered purpose, suggested outcomes and possible ways of reaching these.
# How can I engage participants in process decision-making to create transparency of process.
Process transparency (Dick pers comm).
Summer 1993/1994
Conducted the first of what were to be 10 post-theory sessions.
Reflected with MTT where the idea emerged of dealing with issues that were currently relevant in their decision-making. We agreed to operate on such issues as well as return later to the wool issue. The MTT members referred to these as current local issues(CLI).
My reflection on how reflection with Westland pastoralists showed experientially learning about current problematic issues was a concept to test.
I reflected on my emerging conceptualisation of group participation and collaboration.
+ How does action research in group situations deal with problematic situations that arise in the work?
As a group, we discussed and agreed to continue to use experiential learning as a foundation for directing our attention to learning about CLIs.
I need to negotiate my need to generate material about the process of developing learning opportunities with pastoralists for my Doctoral study.
I sought disconfirming evidence about the usefulness of the change in group focus to dealing with current local issues. The pastoralists supported the change.
Has this been a shift that the group supported?
Section 3.6 The third action research cycle of the project
Table 3.5 contains the events and issues, as well as the concepts and theory explored, during the third cycle of my research.
The third cycle of the research involved the same group of pastoralists as in the second cycle. Cycle two concluded with the emergence from the collaborative action research of CLIs (Current Local Issues) as a significant focus for the MTT group. Thus cycle three involved a change in focus from experiential learning about an issue related to the wool industry, to experiential learning about issues that were currently confronting pastoralists in their property management. Later we returned to the wool issue around which the group had first gathered.
The central column, ‘Issues arising at the time’, contains items that underwent the application of action research cycles within the project’s three larger cycles of action research. That is they were ‘cycles within cycles’. These have been marked as follows:
+ My reflection activities.++ Improving our action learning practice.
+++ Taking action as a part of learning.
* Attending to the need to develop new concepts as a part of learning.
** Developing our group reflection skills.
*** Developing my facilitation skills for learning situations.
# Making process transparent to participants.
Table 3.5. The third cycle of the action research
THE EVENTS
THE ISSUES ARISING AT THE TIME
THE THEORY AND CONCEPTS EXPLORED
Autumn/winter/spring/ summer 1994/1995
I conducted 9 other sessions with the MTT over the following 10 months.
MTT reflected on a process we used for describing problematic situations and developed guidelines for bringing problematic situations to sessions.
++ What initial knowledge about a problematic situation will allow a group to action learn using that situation?
Problem describing (Bunning pers comm).
As a group we developed a five stage model for action learning with current local issues (CLIs) based on the questioning model of action learning.
++ Developing a process of action learning as a procedure for dealing with problematic issues.
Action Learning (Proceedings of Second World Congress on Action Learning (Bruce and Russell1992); Revans 1982).
Reflection (Spencer 1989).
We reflected as a group, at the end of each session.
Pastoralists were keener to stay focussed on content when I once sought to deal with how we each reacted to each other in discussions.
** In what ways do reactions to events influence learning and how can a group reflect to increase an individual’s awareness of this?
I sought disconfirming evidence of the success of my attempts to create transparency of process through reflecting on ‘why are we here?’ The outcome seemed positive.
# My awareness that some MTT members still seemed unsure of our direction - expressed as ‘why are we here?’.
Reflection to test interpretations of situations (Argyris et al 1985).
I continued offering a purpose and suggested agenda for discussion to start each session.
Is present input from pastoralists into how our sessions run adequate? Do we have a shared understanding of our direction?
I believe we need to focus on our process.
Facilitating process delivery (Dalmau and Dick 1992).
As an action researcher, I spent time reflecting after each session and as other events arose.
I will benefit from increasing my understanding of reflection in action research and its role in inquiry.
Researcher reflection (Spencer 1989; Schon 1987).
I continued reflecting on ways that I, as an action researcher, could develop the participative and collaborative aspects of the research with the group.
Participation (McTaggart 1989).
I introduced an activity that drew attention to group relationships.
*** How do groups interact? How can my facilitation support it usefully?
Exercises for self esteem (Anon 1991).
A concept began emerging for me that facilitation, and not just the processes used, impact on how the group operates.
Congruency of action theories (Argyris et al 1985).
I used lateral thinking techniques for variety in generating new concept development.
* Is dissonance a needed prerequisite for change and the development of new concepts?
* I need to demonstrate ways of using techniques that assist pastoralists to gain new perspectives on issues.
Lateral thinking (deBono 1971;1982).
Critical thinking (Brookfield 1987).
Conflict management (Dick 1990a).
I introduced, for MTT discussion, propositional knowledge about action learning set sessions.
++ Is our process providing what MTT pastoralists want?
My time management of sessions needs to improve.
Action learning set procedures (Bunning 1993; McGill and Beaty 1992)
To further the concept of improving my process transparency and collaborativeness, I prepared only a proposed purpose for our sessions. We discussed and modified the purpose and then as a group developed the activities to reach it.
# I need to test expanded discussion activities as sessions begin, as a means of creating process transparency.
We tested and reflected on a revised model of action learning. Pastoralists continued bringing CLIs for action learning.
++ I want to make action learning relevant to participating pastoralists.
Action learning set operations (McGill and Beaty 1992).
I sought disconfirming evidence of pastoralists support for the use of our action learning model in our group. They supported its use.
++ Posing the question to pastoralists "Would you come back for this (way of operating)?"
My reflection led to recognition of the concept that opportunities arise for learning in our group. Grasping the opportunities can come through facilitation.
*** Some events lead to learning opportunities - expanding these to embrace everyone would be useful for learning.
Reflection in co-operative inquiry situations (Heron 1988).
Facilitation in action learning
Involving people in their decisions (Seligman 1991).
My reflection led to a group discussion about my presenting a problematic issue. The concept that emerged was that I should do so. I did so and MTT members suggested it was a useful demonstration practice.
Two pastoralists brought CLIs that we used in action learning. Afterwards they said that the outcome was the same as their own deliberations, but the group had reinforced their learning outcome.
*** In personal reflection notes made about observations in my project work I become aware that I respond to situations that are unclear to me, by suggesting that the process I’ll use to increase my clarity is ‘initiate discussion [with pastoralists in the group] about ... (situation) ...’ It is the only process I refer to for issues that are unclear. For me it raises questions about whether there are alternative ways and, is my choice related to my own preferred learning style?
Preferred learning styles (Mumford 1993).
My reflections led to my understanding that issues brought to our group activities by pastoralists are real for them. However, I didn’t seek disconfirming evidence.
I wonder if the CLIs being brought are appropriate.
We returned to the wool issue around which the MTT had originally gathered. The group decided to prepare a ‘code of options’ for wool selling.
In a reporting back session, two pastoralists said they had not taken planned action in relation to their CLI. The reasons centred on already existing satisfaction in each problematic area.
+++ How might this not taking action be explained?
We reflected on what would make it possible for each of these two pastoralists to bring issues that were currently important to them.
I need to understand what makes it possible to bring personally significant issues to the action learning sessions.
Both agreed they wouldn’t feel comfortable bringing their problems to the group.
What might this mean in terms of pastoralists and action learning?
As a group we reflected on the issue of raising real issues at action learning sessions.
++ Are there key points about the process of action learning that would create support for pastoralists to bring such issues?
On their initiative MTT members and I demonstrated action learning to their other management team members. In a second round we involved the larger group in an action learning activity.
I reflected on the material relating to the two situations where pastoralists did not take action. A concept began emerging for me of the role of relationships in generating the exchange of authentic information.
What can I learn from pastoralists not bringing real CLIs?
The occurrence of non-real issues in action learning. (Personal experience in another situation of action learning sets; McGill and Beaty 1992)
Authentic information (Dick and Dalmau 1992; Argyris et al 1985; Habermas 1973; 1984).
I recorded learning outcomes reported by pastoralists.
One pastoralist recognised and referred to what appeared to be higher level learning relating to 3 CLIs the group used in action learning.
In our group the pastoralists collected, shared and reflected on the material relating to the wool issue. Reflection drew reference to the usefulness of having a method (original experiential learning model) for working on the wool issue.
In a session reflecting on a proposed group learning purpose, I acted to generate dialogue amongst members. The outcome was useful but not clearly better than previous experiences.
+++ How are MTT members seeing their taking action in relation to what they are experientially learning?
I need to practise the concept of not creating my perspective of appropriate action as the dominant one.
‘Dialogue’ (Senge 1990).
The group decided to bring together their material about options for selling wool, put them into a pamphlet and make it available to other pastoralists.
In a final session, we reflected on our groups’ time together through group reflection and responding to review questions. Three months after this I conducted reflection interviews with MTT members and some management team members. There was no clear support for using the questioning model of the action learning process with other pastoralists. Some said they used the process with their families.
I continued my reflection as thesis writing to generate abstract conceptualisations and foci for active experimentation.
Section 3.7 Summary
This chapter provides an overview of the events of the project, a highlighting of the issues that arose at the time, and the concepts explored in response to an event or issue. The tables are an attempt to convey something of the complexity of my intervention into the learning system of individual pastoralists. They portray the project as the non-linear application of cycles of action research informed by previous events, issues and concept exploration. More detail will be presented in later chapters as I develop the arguments drawn from this work.
I have now presented my central arguments, my methodology and an outline of the events of my project. In Chapter 4 I present my reflective observations on literature related to Argument I of the thesis.
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-groberts03.html
