Advertisement

Action Research and Criticality: Working Out the Stone in Your Shoe

  • Michael CorbettEmail author
  • Allen Hill
Chapter

Abstract

The action research tradition in Australia has been heavily influenced by critical work of Steven Kemmis and the school of researchers he inspired, as well as by the British tradition inspired by Lawrence Stenhouse and others. These chapters illustrate the close alliance between educational research and the ordinary practice of working educators, which is a particular feature of Anglo-American traditions of inquiry inspired both by pragmatism and by critical theory, both of which demand of research an active engagement in intentional change process. Work in this section is developed out of this action research tradition and takes the form of analyses of practice with an eye to improving the way that practice is accomplished. In some cases, this means a critical interrogation of the effectiveness of the work of an educator/researcher, while in other cases, the analysis of practice from a socially critical perspective is the central focus of the work. What draws these disparate studies together is a central focus on practice.

References

  1. Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biesta, G. (2015). On the two cultures of educational research, and how we might move ahead: Reconsidering the ontology, axiology and praxeology of education. European Educational Research Journal, 14(1), 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education knowledge and action research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Corbett, M. (2001). Learning to leave: The irony of schooling in a coastal community (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  7. Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the socio-material (1st ed.). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA: Praeger.Google Scholar
  9. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2006). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hart, P. (2008). Elusive participation: Methodological challenges in researching teaching and participatory learning in environmental education. In A. Reid, B. B. Jensen, J. Nikel, & V. Simovska (Eds.), Participation and learning: Perspectives on education and the environment, health and sustainability (pp. 225–240). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kadlec, A. (2007). Dewey’s critical pragmatism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  13. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 559–603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Labaree, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13–22.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1845/1998). The German ideology, including theses on Feuerbach and the introduction of the critique of political economy (Paperback edition). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  16. McKernan, J. (2013). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Mills, C. W. (2000). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Neilsen, L. (1994). A stone in my shoe: Teaching literacy in times of change. Winnipeg, Manitabo: Peguis Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. West, G. B., & Crookes, G. (2017). Critical practitioner research in language education under difficult circumstances. In S.-A. Mirhosseini (Ed.), Reflections on qualitative research in language and literacy education (pp. 139–155). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationAcadia UniversityWolfvilleCanada
  2. 2.Ara Institute of TechnologyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations