Action Research

The research scheme on which this study is based is action research, which is widely used in educational and pedagocical studies (Schadewitz and Zamenopoulos, 2008) and in “the introduction of information and communication technologies into educational settings” (Somekh, 2006). It is “used to understand the effects of implementing a new initiative or technology where one is uncertain how effective it might be” (Schadewitz and Zamenopoulos, 2008). Somekh (2006) describes action research as “a means, whereby research can become a systematic intervention, going beyond describing, analysing and theorizing social practices to working in partnership with participants to reconstruct and transform those practices”. This research is carried out as a “systematic intervention” within real-life social environments, where the use of social network sites is introduced to the actual processes of selected design studios. Throughout these interventions, the researcher works with the participants; i.e. teachers and students of the design studio courses, in order to make changes in the given social environments or “practices”. Avison et al.

(1999) defines action research as “an iterative process involving researchers and practitioners acting together on a particular cycle of activities, including problem diagnosis, action intervention, and reflective learning”. Altrichter et al. (2002) define action research by presenting definitons by other scholars in the area of action research. According to Altrichter et al. (2002), Dick, in his 1991 article Action Research and Evaluation, defines action research as “a family of research methodologies which pursue action (or change) and research (or understanding) at the same time”. Also in Dick’s definition, it is stated that the action research plan includes cycles of “action and critical reflection” on that action, “continuously refining methods, data and interpretation in the light of the understanding developed in the earlier cycles” (Altrichter et al., 2002). A second definition of action research presented by Altrichter et al. (2002) is one proposed by Zuber-Skerritt in her 1992

dated book Professional Development in Higher Education: A Theoretical Framework for Action Research. In her definition, Zuber-Skerritt suggests that all practices of action research “adopt a methodical, interactive approach embracing problem identification, action planning, implementation, evaluation, and reflection”

(Altrichter et al., 2002). Her definition, similar to the one proposed by Dick, is also followed by explaining the relations between different cycles of action research practices, stating that “the insights gained from the initial cycle feed into planning of the second cycle, for which the action plan is modified and the research process repeated” (Altrichter et al., 2002). The four basic steps of action research, as defined by social psychologist Kurt Lewin, and later elaborated by Kemmis and McTaggart, in the 1988 book The Action Research Planner are “(1) Planning, (2) Acting, (3) Observing, (4) Reflecting” (Altrichter et al., 2002). Below is the graphical respresentation of this cyclic scheme as it is presented in the 2001 article by Zuber-Skerritt named Action Learning And Action Research Paradigm Praxis And Programs.

Figure 4.1: The Spiral of Action Research Cycles (Zuber-Skerritt, 2001).

In her article, Zuber-Skerritt (2001) defines action research in terms of four “cyclic”

processes: (1) “strategic planning”, (2) “implementing the plan”, (3) “observation”

(“evaluation and self-evaluation”), and (4) “critical reflection” of the results and

findings. Other scholars also define action research as a research practice, which involves individual successive cycles consisting of planning, acting and reflecting;

and also researchers and practitioners taking part together within the research.

Avison et al. (1999) defines action research as “an iterative process involving researchers and practitioners acting together on a particular cycle of activities, including problem diagnosis, action intervention, and reflective learning”. Swann (2002) describes three qualities of an action research practice: first, “a social practice that needs to be changed”; second, a “participatory” process where the researcher is in “equitable collaboration”; and third, the “cyclic” procedure of “planning, acting, observing and reflecting”. Rearick and Feldman (1999) define action research in terms of the action researcher being located in the action research space; and state that “once [the researcher is] located [in the research space], it can then be said, at this time, in this situation, this is action research”.

Somekh (2006) defines action research on the basis of eight basic “methodological principles”. Firstly, he describes action research as a research scheme, which involves “series of flexible cycles” of action and research, that are related to each other “holistically rather than as separate steps” (Somekh, 2006). She (2006) describes these steps as “the collection of data about the topic of investigation;

analysis and interpretation of those data; the planning and introduction of action strategies to bring about positive changes; and evaluation of those changes through further data collection, analysis and interpretation”. In this study, a research process consisting of three cycles is conducted. In all three cycles, the four steps of collecting data, analysing the data, planning and applying an action plan on the basis of the data, and evaluating the findings of the action are held. Secondly, action research is a collaborative practice in which “participants and researchers” work together in conducting the research (Somekh, 2006). In relation to the same topic, Altrichter et al. (2002) finish their paper by stating that action research is “collaborative” and that

“the researcher is not an expert doing research from an external perspective, but a partner working with and for those affected by the problem”. The implementation stage of this study is a collaborative process held by the researcher, teachers and students of the design studio courses. Thirdly, Somekh (2006) suggests that the

“knowledge and understanding” gained through action research – and then shared by publications – is unique, thanks to the involvement of “participant-researchers” as

insiders, as opposed to a “researcher coming from outside”. Fourthly, action research is rooted in a “vision of social transformation”, by which the researcher aims to bring about changes in the context of a social environment for “greater social justice”, being aware of the limitations within such a process (Somekh, 2006). Parallel to this principle, the research in this study aims to supplement the social interaction and communication processes in design studio course. As the fifth principle, Somekh (2006) suggests that there is a “high level of reflexivity” in terms of the “self of the researcher” in action research practice, where the “role” and the “identitiy” of the researcher is defined and “constructed” by the relationships within the social context of the research scheme. In each cycle of the implementation, the reseacher took diverse roles depending on the needs of the participants and the process of the cycle.

The sixth principle indicates that action research involves “exploratory engagement”

with the knowledge of various areas of social sciences to work with its “explanatory”

processes (Somekh, 2006). In the seventh principle, Somekh (2006) emphasises the experience of the practitioners throughout the research, as they “reflect on their practice” and learn about their own “personal-professional values and assumptions”.

Finally, the eight principles suggest that, with the collaboration of the insider practitioners and outsider researchers, action research “locates the inquiry in an understanding of broader historical, political and ideological contexts” (Somekh, 2006).