Action research PhDGerry Roberts -- Chapter 8
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 8 Conclusion
In this chapter of my thesis I explore three summary aspects of my thesis. The first is the avenues that may provide some cautious expansion of the emergent outcomes of my action research such that they may be of interest and value to others in extension. The second is the directions that my project offers for my future collaborative action researching. I pursue both of these relative to the major emergent outcomes referred to in the thesis and present these in Section 8.1 as the starting point for the chapter. The third aspect discussed reflects my recognition of the reflective nature of my thesis and an acknowledgment of my need to balance reflection with an increased emphasis on action in my practice of extension in the future.
Section 8.1 My action researching from an emergent perspective
In Table 8.1 I show an abbreviated form of the major emergent outcomes from my action researching following the scheme presented by Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1992) for action research in graduate management programs.
Table 8.1 The emergent outcomes of my action researching referred to in my thesis
Action research
Emergent outcome
Cycle 1
1. The lack of transparency of my processes to other participants and its lessening their understanding of the focus of our sessions [as acquiring experiential learning skills for use in management].
2. My unawareness of directing pastoralists towards outcomes that I deemed suitable rather than true participation and collaboration that allowed them to make their own decisions.
3. My initially incorrect interpretation of other participants' expression of my introductory process being ‘boring’ leading to a truncated introductory process for cycle 2. From this emerged the outcome of recognition that I had sought only confirming and not disconfirming information about an observation through accepting my initial interpretation.
Cycle 2
1. The idea that current local issues (CLIs) would be of more interest to pastoralists as a focus for acquiring skills in experiential learning.
Cycle 3
1. The understanding that relationships influence whether or not valid information is exchanged.
2. As the facilitator, there are benefits in my modelling experiential learning with groups where experiential learning skills are being used.
3. The role of matching my espoused theory and my theory-in-use of facilitation for successful practice of facilitation.
4. Recognising that in collaborative learning that I too am a learner.
Section 8.2 The underlying rationale for my concluding chapter
Action research is often perceived as being ‘local’ in nature, with the outcome having relevance within the context of the particular situation this means that outcomes are not usually extended other than where conceptual generalisations are appropriate. I recognise the limitation that this places on the generalisability of the outcomes that emerge (Lomax 1986). Hodgkinson (1957) and Porras and Robertson (1987) refer to this in mounting challenges to action research as an appropriate methodology. In their opinion action research delivers only practical outcomes. I would suggest however, that ‘local relevance’ is valuable in itself and can arguably be extended beyond ‘practical only’ outcomes. Examples are available in the writing of Toulmin (1996), Dick (1995) and Bawden (1995) and others. Newby (1997) challenges action research about its local and practical-only response to problematic situations suggesting that action research outcomes can apply more widely (unlike Porras and Robertson (1987) and Hodgkinson (1957)).
I recognise that while the outcomes are specific to the situation in which they arose, they can provide insight into the value of the learning processes that led to them. Callo (1995), Pretty and Chambers (1993) and Lomax (1986) refer to this and Newby (1997 p77) draws on the theoretical framework of discourses to argue that "Whilst the fact of reflexivity prevents us from returning to the naive view that research findings can have the objective status of timeless and more or less context-free truths, it does not condemn us to a view of knowledge which is no more than a multitude of personal accounts of particular situations." On that basis my means of offering outcomes that may be of interest to others in extension is one of nominating the outcome and considering if there is literature that supports its generalisation to other situations. This approach is one suggested by Dick (pers comm) and is supported by Newby’s (1997) argument that referring action research outcomes to the utopian, scientific, philosophic and deliberative discourses, produces outcomes as propositional knowledge that can be ‘generalised’ as well as ‘localised’. It is similar to the meta-process theory approach that Lomax (1986) suggests can be used to analyse, criticise and synthesise action research outcomes in education such that they can be communicated more widely and less exclusively.
To complete my rationale I refer to two assumptions I hold and the preferred personal behaviour for me that arises from them. The first assumption is that I cannot teach anyone anything by telling them what they ought to do or referring to what I regard as ‘important’ (where the implication is they also should consider it so!). I assume secondly that individuals learn what they want to and I can only facilitate experiences that may promote their learning. My preferred behaviour in response to these assumptions is to offer information that I have found enlightening in a way that allows individuals with whom I am involved to have free and informed choice about its relevance to them. I recognise that the foundation of my rationale is that my human nature is to want to decide on action for myself rather than be told what to do.
Section 8.3 The cautious expansion of action research outcomes
In this section I explore three issues that arise from the emergent outcomes presented in Section 8.1 in terms of their generalisability to other extension situations. The three are:
- The value of having a learning focus on relationships in group situations.
- The role of reflecting on extension practice to enable a match between the principles we claim we follow in extension and the ones that are evident from our action.
- The benefits of seeking disconfirming evidence rather than confirming evidence to develop critical understanding of emerging interpretations.
Section 8.3.1 Having a learning focus to relationships in group situations
I propose, based on reflections on my project experience and subsequent thesis writing, that if improving the quality of relationships amongst participants is a learning focus in group settings there will be increased likelihood of valid information being exchanged.
Argyris and Schon (1996) and Habermas (1992) provide a useful starting point for considering the generalisability of my proposition. Habermas is widely recognised as having developed accepted philosophic positions about communication that promote valid information exchange and Argyris and Schon have developed the theme in the organisational development field. These authors suggest that valid information is the foundation of useful and successful communication. My own experience, particularly in my project activities, supports the importance of valid information. It contributes to moving forward in action researching and to having outcomes emerge that are valued by participants. In Chapter 5 I suggested that the quality of relationships is a factor that influences access to the validity of the information exchanged.
I have found no significant body of literature referring explicitly to learning about relationships in agricultural extension situations. It is occasionally referred to as important in achieving useful extension outcomes (Scoones and Thompson 1993) but without suggesting it as a learning focus. Relationships do receive attention in organisational development. As in other areas the attention is not explicitly directed as a learning focus. The implication however, is that practitioners ‘learn’ about the relationship that exists between their client and themselves by practising the development of a quality relationship. In organisational development it is referred to as contracting (Schwarz 1994; Garratt 1991a) and while explanations of the phenomenon vary, that of Garratt (1991a) includes developing a continuing relationship between a practitioner and a client that is grounded in trust so that difficult issues are raised and improved so that organisational change progresses.
Practitioners of organisational development refer to contracting as fundamental to achieving useful outcomes through creating understanding between those involved in any change management activities (Schwarz 1994; Garratt 1991a). "The essence of good consultancy is building up a relationship of trust with the client so that disagreements and misunderstandings may be brought out into the open, discussed and resolved" (Garratt 1991a p9). As an organisational change practitioner Garratt (1991a) is acknowledging that a relationship that is not contributing to improvement in an organisation’s problematic situation, is a problematic situation for the organisation. That is, the relationship is preventing change in the organisation’s situation. Additionally, Garratt (1991a) and Schwarz (1994) acknowledge at least implicitly that they devote time to establishing and maintaining trust based relationships so that the main focus of their work, organisational development, can progress. I suggest that in establishing and maintaining the relationship they are learning about the relationship they have with a client. Given my observations I would argue that such learning should be an explicit focus for all participants.
Facilitating the learning of actors in the situation as a means of developing effective improvements in problematic situations in agriculture has substantial support (Stubbs et al 1997; Bawden 1995; 1990; 1988; and Pretty and Chambers 1993). I suggest that, if the quality of relationships between actors seeking to improve a problematic situation is impeding their efforts then the incorporation of relationships as a learning focus can play a significant role in effecting the sought after improvement.
Thus although I found no explicit reference in the literature of agricultural extension to learning about relationships it occurs in other areas. The example given was how it is a focus for discussion in contracting in organisational development (Schwarz 1994; Garratt 1991a). As well, the agricultural literature refers to learning as the means of dealing with problematic situations (Bawden 1995). On that basis, if relationships are likely to be problematic, then learning about them seems appropriate.
Section 8.3.2 Reflecting on individual extension officer practice
The second issue about which I will present a case for other extensionists to consider is that of reflecting on individual extension practice. I propose that reflection is a means of providing for improved practice and that action science provides a way of conducting self-reflection. The extension practice that I am suggesting can be improved by reflection is facilitation of collaborative learning in group settings.
There are two sources of literature that support the idea of attending to facilitation in extension at an individual level. The first is the literature on experiential learning and its emphasis on reflection as a means for improving practice through learning. The second is in extension literature itself where there is increasing recognition of an interventionist’s (facilitator’s) level of influence on what happens in agricultural extension.
In Section 4.6 I dealt in some detail with reflection as a function of experiential learning. The following is a brief summary of the material I presented there:
Reflection is an important human activity and different individuals acquire different levels of skill in its practice (Boud et al 1985a). In general however, it is not a practice undertaken consciously or regularly (O'Neil and Marsick 1994; and Sterman 1989). In the adult learning literature Mezirow (1991) refers to the lack of attention to reflection generally and to a number of significant adult learning studies where it is afforded little attention. Authors who refer to the need for reflection include Kember et al (1997), Bawden (1995; 1990), Mezirow (1991), Russell and Ison (1991), Oja and Smulyan (1989), Brookfield (1987), Boud et al (1985), Schön (1983) Carr and Kemmis (1986) and Habermas (1973). Newby (1997) refers to its role in action research when he claims, "Many see the self as becoming, rightly, the main focus of the action research project, and indeed the main focus of valid educational research as a whole." The usefulness of reflecting on individual practice finds ready support in the literature of learning.
In relation to extension itself, the role of the facilitator or interventionist is being increasingly recognised as contributing to the outcome of the activity. Chambers (1994) and Scoones and Thompson (1993) refer to poor quality interventions arising from a lack of self-critical awareness by extensionists and researchers. Callo (1995) recognised the potential for the facilitator to influence a community project in the Philippines, likewise Burrows (1997) for nurse education. Russell and Ison (1993) inferred their understanding of the facilitator’s influence in a rangeland situation in western New South Wales. They acted on the activities pastoralists chose rather than activities influenced by their own roles as facilitators and researchers. Martin (1995) refers to this influence in his interpretation of power relations and its effect on group control in the Landcare movement. There is then, although not yet widely recognised in agricultural extension, an emerging recognition of facilitator influence on extension outcomes, but where the level of influence is commonly not recognised by the facilitators (Chambers 1994; Scoones and Thompson 1993).
It is in response to my appreciation of the extension literature, coupled with my awareness of influencing outcomes in my research, that I present reflection as a significant factor in improving facilitation practice. In my project work I used reflection based on action science concepts in developing my understanding of my impact as a facilitator of learning. Action science also provided guidance for me on how to change my behaviour. Argyris et al (1985 p237) suggest that action science "..... is expressly designed to foster learning about one’s practice and about alternative ways of constructing it." They also claim that action science does this through interaction with others. It is the act of reflecting in a critical way about ourselves as facilitators that I am promoting as of value in extension situations. Although I found action science suitable other extension practitioners may find alternative techniques that better suit their situation.
I found no literature that suggests that attention to reflection about our own practice is inappropriate. There are however two points of note concerning the solitary practice of critical reflection (that is without input into the reflection process by others). The first is Habermas’ (1973) suggestion that it may lead to self-delusion about the meaning of our reflections. The ideas and interpretations offered by others provide a richness of data that act to limit the development of self-delusionary outcomes. The second point comes from Brookfield (1994) who maintains, based on his contact with those doing self-reflecting, that it is a difficult and challenging task that requires a supportive environment.
Section 8.3.3 Seeking disconfirming evidence
My appreciation of the writing of Habermas (1984) leads me to believe that if we seek to disconfirm what we think we understand, rather than to confirm it, we are adding information to our understanding by using the challenge of a dialectic. Three sources of material support, at least indirectly, the seeking of disconfirming information. They are the literature relating to recognition of the influence of frames of reference on our development of perspectives about issues, the literature of action science, and the philosophy of hypothetico-deductive research. My interpretation from these sources follows.
The proposition that the frames of reference that we hold influence each of us in our interpretation of interactions with others helps explain why misunderstanding and misinterpretation happen. Authors who maintain that an inquirer’s frames of reference (or some similar term) set boundaries and limits to the perspectives that determine the direction of inquiry include Schon and Rein (1994), Mezirow (1991), Schon (1987), Argyris et al (1985), Schon (1983) and Habermas (1973). All of these authors refer to the limitations that frames can produce and suggest the need to seek ways to move outside them. Boud and Walker (1990) refer in particular to the impact of previous experience in setting frames of reference.
Argyris and Schon (1996) argue the fallacy of assuming that we know the intentions of others and their reasons for action. The boundaries thus created determine the perspectives considered by inquirers and inhibit consideration of other perspectives. My experience in agricultural extension supports this interpretation and leads me to suggest that a way of generating a different perspective on an emerging understanding is to seek to disconfirm it.
The literature of action science offers direct support for my suggestion. Argyris and his colleagues (Argyris and Schon 1996, Argyris 1990, Argyris 1987 and Argyris et al 1985) suggest that human beings learn to operate for the most part by being in control. They furthermore suggest that we tend to assume we understand what is happening, especially in situations that are threatening, and then seek to find evidence that confirms that understanding. We do this rather than show ourselves as unsure. My observation of my own behaviour supports this. In seeking confirmation we selectively use information to provide evidence. Argyris suggests that a common outcome of this seeking of apparent control is defensiveness and that this leads to patterns of (mis)communication that escalate error of interpretation and understanding. The end result is cynicism about others' motives and a belief that our own defensiveness needs no change (Argyris 1987). The implication is that one way to increase our understanding and make more information available in interactions and inquiry is through seeking to disconfirm an emerging understanding of our communication with others (Argyris and Schon 1996). Dick (1987a) used this idea in developing a process of convergent interviewing for inquiry where the seeking of disconfirming evidence increases the likelihood of developing valid interpretations.
I believe a fundamental assumption of hypothetico-deductive research lends weight to my suggestion - it is that theories cannot be confirmed, only disconfirmed, "For our critical examination of our theories leads us to attempts to overthrow [disconfirm] them; and these lead us further to experiments and observations of a kind which nobody would ever have dreamt of without the stimulus and guidance both of our theories and of our criticism of them." (Popper 1979).
Thus it appears that the emergent outcome of the value of seeking disconfirming information finds support in the literature of frames of reference in inquiry, action science as well as in that of hypothetico-deductive research. On that basis it seems possible to suggest the practice of seeking disconfirming evidence for other extensionists to consider as a practice in their activities.
Section 8.4 Future directions for my collaborative action researching
Action research methodology provides for further cycles based on the emergent outcomes to date. Although the particular project is finished, further cycles of action research can be incorporated into my subsequent practice. Furthermore, the calls for an expanded focus on the sociological aspects of agricultural extension (Stubbs et al 1997, Vanclay and Lawrence 1995, Fitzhardinge 1994 and Lawrence et al 1992) suggest that the flexibility and continuing nature of action research methodology (Bawden 1995; Dick 1995; Carr and Kemmis 1986) maintains its relevance in the social situation of agricultural extension practice with pastoralists in the rangeland of the central west Queensland.
The two areas of my interest relate to collaboratively action researching about relationships in group settings. The latter relates to my sense of a ‘thematic concern’ (Carr and Kemmis 1986) in action research terms, about the value of improved relationships among participants in agricultural extension (Scoones and Thompson 1993). The first area concerns ‘dialogue’ as a means of making understanding of relationships discussable in groups and thus learning at all levels about relationships. The second is the role of personality types in group situations and their impact on relationships.
A third area of my interest also related to collaboratively action researching, is that of developing a model of action learning. I will refer to this in Section 8.4.3.
Section 8.4.1 Dialogue
Bohm (1990) refers to ‘dialogue’ as open discussion that promotes new understanding and the development of participants’ perspectives about an issue. Cayer (1997) supports this interpretation and challenges the view that it is just another "tool" for use in organisational development. Bohm (1990) expresses his concept of ‘dialogue’ as ".... a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which will emerge some new understanding". Schein (1993) refers to ‘dialogue’ as a process of providing for shared meanings and a common process of thinking in a group.
A major focus of the work of Dick and Dalmau (1992; 1991;1991a) and Dick (1990a; 1987) has been devoted to developing processes that generate ‘dialogue’ among people, usually with a particular purpose in mind. Their processes provide a practical means of achieving authenticity of ‘dialogue’ and as such they offer the opportunity to learn about what is happening in group situations, including ways of improving relationships.
Areas in which Dick and Dalmau have developed processes for generating ‘dialogue’ include the consideration of how participants underlying values influence action, group effectiveness and conflict resolution. Additionally they consider how to ‘dialogue’ to generate organisational change through discussing the undiscussable.
‘Dialogue’ among participants offers a starting point for generating learning about relationships. Collaborative action research that seeks understanding of the conditions that will support ‘dialogue’ among pastoralists and extension workers in central west Queensland’s rangelands offers a future avenue in my work.
Section 8.4.2 Personality types
In Section 4.6.4 I argued that individuals’ mental constructs of their social relationships can influence the level of criticality in learning. Following that, in Chapter 5, I interpreted field observations to suggest that seeking improvement in relationships in group experiential learning situations is of value. I then proposed learning about improving relationships as an additional dimension to Bawden’s (1995) model of a critical system (Section 5.6.1). A concept that offers a means of learning about relationships is the use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) of personality type (Myers and Myers 1993; Quenk 1993) and I see this as the second focus for my future collaborative action research.
The MBTI provides a means of understanding why we and others act as we each do. It does so in a way that supports an improved quality of communication. Pretty and Chambers (1993) suggest that differences between individuals need affirmation rather than rationalisation to a depersonalised commonality embracing few of those in the system. They suggest that the future is uncertain, complex and dependent in part at least on current situations. In such circumstances they propose that the voice of individuals and groups in decision-making is to be valued.
Including the voice of individuals means taking into account the context of the situation for them. Russell and Ison (1991) refer specifically to the need to contextualise science in the rangelands where one of the elements is the people in the rangeland. Attention to personality types in a way that increases understanding about the human elements in rangelands will enhance the interpretation of the rangeland situation in which extension occurs.
An additional aspect making attention to personality type worthwhile relates to the development of defensive routines. Argyris and Schon’s (1996) suggest that individuals establish defensive behavioural routines as a means of remaining in control in situations that are threatening or uncertain. My interpretation is that defensive routines are likely to produce non-authentic information exchanges and thwart attempts to contextualise agricultural extension to meet individual and group needs.
Barger and Kirby (1995) maintain that relationships based on sharing and support enhance beneficial change in difficult or uncertain times. They suggest attention to psychological type (personality type) facilitates the forming and sustaining of productive relationships and the affirmation of individuality called for by Pretty and Chambers (1993) in current agricultural extension contexts. It could also provide a foundation for overcoming the defensive routines that Argyris and Schon (1996) maintain are evident in times of uncertainty. All of which highlights the potential significance of collaborative action research dealing with psychological type as a future direction for my activities.
I believe that a focus on personal development based on personality type can contribute to the emergence of level III or epistemic learning. Primarily this can arise through the explicit development of understanding of others’ personalities, and of understanding of interpersonal relationships (Quenk 1993; Myers and Myers 1993) and contextualising them in the framework of learning. Personality type learning (understanding) and use in relationships involves a level of consideration of the self in the relationship. The inclusion of the role of the self is what I have interpreted in Chapter 4 as characterising emancipatory learning in Habermasian terms at learning Level III. The emergence of Level III learning will however, require a focus on developing an understanding of the relationship between the knower (self) and what is known (in this case about the self in the form of personality type).
Support for the potential of such learning to promote Level III learning is evident in Stansfield’s (1996) work with students and their feelings about their learning. The work confirms the role of personal development in promoting independent learning skills that involve the acceptance of peer feedback and effective group working. Both of these processes are ones that Brookfield (1987; 1993; 1994) suggests provide for the critical learning required to reach Level III learning.
Learning III enhances the prospect of improvements that are longer term (Torbert 1983) or persistent (Bawden 1995) in problematic situations through defining the role of the self in the situation. Purdy (1997) however, observed that where situation imperatives are present, an accent on competencies related to the imperatives compromised the facilitation of employees personal development. Purdy proposes that in nurse education the accent on technical competence compromises the facilitation of the nurses’ personal development. Kemmis (1996) makes a similar observation related to the training of educators when he refers to system or institution directed imperatives restricting the practice of emancipation in learning.
My interpretation is that organisational development warrants consideration to assess how a learning organisation can develop learning III in the presence of other imperatives without an organisational imperative that states its purpose as developing employees as emancipatory learners.
Senge (1990) and Issac (1993) both present models of dialogue portraying the incorporation of a business imperative to focus, and I would suggest limit, the possible outcomes of ‘dialogue’. This contrasts with the interpretation made by Cayer (1997) who suggests that Bohm’s open-ended ‘dialogue’, which is unlike Senge’s (1990) and Issacs’ (1993) interpretation, can produce learning III. Cayer (1997) refers to the need to free ‘dialogue’ from its "utilitarian yoke" if learning III or emancipatory learning is to be attained. His call is similar to that of Kemmis (1996 p200) who argues for education to continue committing to emancipatory perspectives by "... resisting system-shaped [institution dictated] relationships [boundaries] in our lifeworlds and consciousness ...".
My interest for the future development of my practice is the synthesis of the two areas of ‘dialogue’ and personality type to explore the potential of the integration to contribute to sound relationships and emancipatory learning in group (or organisational) settings.
Section 8.4.3 Action learning
In Section 1.4 I wrote of the Queensland Department of Primary Industries’ aim of promoting client (farmer) self-reliance through an extension strategy. In Section 1.5 I referred to my desire to progress pastoralist self-reliance in complex situations through developing their skills in experiential learning. Later in Section 5.5.1 I noted the development from field observations of insights about my need to create transparency of process so pastoralists knew how learning (change) was occurring. It is my current suggestion that transparency of learning process can contribute to the development of self-reliance. Self-reliance can include unfacilitated action learning through pastoralists initiating and self-facilitating their own learning sets.
My interest in action learning arises from its social elements (Revans 1982). Additionally it provides for learning situations that require only initial facilitation as is Revans’ suggestion. Action learning in that model is in contrast to the Hawkesbury model of experiential learning using a facilitator to lead processes that generate knowledge in the domains of the Kolbian (1984) experiential learning. Revan’s model is also in contrast to most other authors of action learning (e.g. McGill and Beaty 1992) who favour continuing facilitation of learning sets. Facilitated action learning sets however, include the questioning elements of the usually described action learning model.
I have elsewhere (Section 5.5.1) suggested that action learning is a particular but less sophisticated form of experiential learning. I also referred to my interest in action learning arising form my belief that pastoralists would find its social aspect of use in learning.
My action researching with pastoralists developed my understanding that their preference is for facilitated approaches to generate learning rather than unfacilitated ones. They report this although at the MTT we collaborated to develop and used in our group setting, a model of pastoralists questioning pastoralists that appeared useful for unfacilitated situations. A similar phenomenon of woolgrowers preferring to participate in facilitated learning experiences is emerging in work by the International Wool Secretariat (IWS) into their Producer Initiated Research and Development (PIRD) program (Mills pers comm).
A possible future starting point for collaborative action researching is whether or not this choice is a cultural feature of the central Queensland pastoral scene. Pastoralists at both Westland and MTT stated that they do not usually critically question other farmers about farm practices.
It will be appropriate to do such a study as collaborative inquiry to allow for emergence rather than assume any determining factor. The work of Passfield (1996) may provide a useful input into any extension of my future work in this area. He suggests that a preoccupation with the form of action learning rather than its substance can lead to less useful action learning interventions.
Section 8. 5 My thesis as a self-reflective document
I began Chapter 1 by referring to Perry and Zuber-Skerritt’s (1992) model of graduate action research. They separated action researching for graduate researchers into core and thesis projects. The concept enabled me to recognise a reflective tone to the documenting of theses and enables me to recognise that as the record of my thesis action research project, this document is a reflective one catering for a reflective preference in my practice. As such it focuses on my practice as an agricultural extension officer facilitating experiential learning with pastoralist farmers.
There is however, a need for balance between reflection and action and Heron (1988) refers to this when discussing validity in co-operative inquiry. The balance is also inherent in Kolb’s (1984) concept of experiential learning wherein reflection is balanced with action in the ‘real’ world.
In this document I have focussed on my practice from a reflective stance. In completing this thesis I recognise that I will practise to balance my reflection with action.
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-groberts08.html
