The action research model in this study

In general, the developed action research model for this study follows the fundamental characteristic of the spiral action research model (plan, act, observe and reflect) to help the author to first determine exactly what she was attempting to discover or confirm in the research. It also was influenced by Zuber-Skerritt (1996), the emancipatory action research model for organisational change and development. He combined the classical spiral of action research cycles (Zuber-Skerritt, 2001) with extended use of the ‘task alignment model’ (Beer et al., 1990) by including “gets feedback on draft policies and reflects on the result” to overcome shortcomings in part of the action research process ‘reflection’. Also, he added the organisational change model “unfreezing, moving, and refreezing” (Lewin, 1952) by including a new step (revise) to overcome missing elements of the model ‘reflection’ in Lewin’s (1952) model of organisational change. Maurer and Githens (2010) suggest that the Lewin three stage process change

81

(unfreezing, moving, and refreezing) had a significant influence on organisational development theory and practice. In addition, other models such as Elliott’s (1991) that stresses reconnaissance through fact finding and analysis within each stage of action, based on self-reflective spiral of cycles, (Kemmis, 1981) influenced developments in the model. The model developed within this thesis was influenced by other models that have roots in the original work of Kurt Lewin (1948); (Coghlan and Brannick, 2010; Costello, 2003; O’Leary, 2004; McNiff, 2002). The action research model developed for this study is one that combines and integrates steps from each of these models. The starting point for any action research process is the generic steps of plan, act, observe, and reflect. Within each generic step there is an eight part structure that

provides a rationale for each strategic intervention aimed at improving understanding of practice within the case organisation (Whitehead and Elliott, 2007). The model process is defined below and represented in Figure 6.

1. Plan (Strategic plan)

Action research generally starts with an idea that is a concern of practice with a desire to want improvement or change. The focus of the group is on the “thematic concern” (Hart and Bond, 1995, p. 54), where a research question identified in an action research study may be different than the ‘thematic concern’ (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988).

1.1 Diagnosing the problem and/or to accept the need to change or improve: This stage reviews current practices of the organisation, creating the motivation to change in an organisation though a disturbance that is called ‘unfreezing’ (Lewin, 1952), ‘diagnosis’ (Taba and Noel, 1957) as cited in Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), ‘reconnaissance’ (Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), and “notion in the practitioner’s mind” (French, 2009, p. 194). This stage is philosophically similar to the reflection stage (French, 2009). Carr and Kemmis (2003) argue that this step gives the researcher a model to establish the circumstances of the study setting.

1.2 Describe and explain the relevant facts of the situation (Reconnaissance) that need change or improvement (Elliott, 1991):

The second part of diagnosing the problem is to change and develop new beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours in the organisation on the basis of new information and insights (‘moving’ Lewin, 1952) in order to ‘develop shared vision’ (Beer et al., 1990).

82 1.3 Planning action:

The organisation will be able to ‘prioritise a list of actions’ within an adequate timeline (Elliott, 1991) by providing strong leadership and spread shared vision to all

departments (Beer et al., 1990) and identify the ‘resource information’ (Elliott, 1991). Although the planning stage is deliberate by controlling changes, to develop plans, there should be concern for the plan being flexible to allow for any unpredictable changes during the progress of a social action project, i.e. the plan takes place in real-time

(Whitehead and Elliott, 2007). Planning within action research requires decision making and the ability of practical judgment (Whitehead and Elliott, 2007).

2. Act

Action at this stage is guided by the planning stage. However, action research is described as fluid and dynamic, thereby:

“Critically informed action is not completely controlled by plans. It is essentially risky. It takes place in real time and encounters real political and material

constraints” (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988, p. 12). 2.1 Implement

This stage is all about taking action and implementation of the plan by stabilising and integrating the new beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours into the rest of the system and reaching a new equilibrium ( Lewin, 1952). At this stage the organisation also needs consideration of time to succeed in implementing a course of action (Elliott, 1991). This is the stage that the use of multiple techniques is recommended (Robson, 2002) where a variety of data collection tools are employed in order to gather valid, reliable and, comprehensive information about the impact of the practice upon the organisation.

3. Observe

The observation stage collects evidence for evaluation and provides the basis for the reflection stage. Observation also needs to be planned, however, the plan should be responsive and flexible, thus as to record the unexpected and respond to an expanded view on the subject under consideration (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988).

83 3.1 Evaluation/observe

This is the stage that requires frequent observation and evaluation of the process and any change by monitoring and adjusting strategies in response to problems in the

revitalisation process (Beer et al., 1990). Any evaluative data about the change would be analysed.

4. Reflect

As the identification of the constraints, benefits and any changes in circumstances due to the implementation occur at this stage, where data analysis provides insight to move the process forward (Grundy and Kemmis, 1988) through subsequent reflection. Reflection leads to a critical review of the meaning of the social situation and provides the basis for future planning of critical informed action (French, 2009).

4.1 Reflection and reconnaissance

The critical reflection stage explains any satisfactory or failure in implementation as well as reviewing the change obtained through feedback previously recorded in the evaluation step (Robson, 2002); hence the evaluation step is an integral part of this stage (Whitehead and Elliott, 2007).

The last stage of the action research cycle is influenced by the McKay and Marshall (2001) action research model. In the last stage, after reflection on each individual act, there is consideration of a final outcome of what has happened and this then contributes to the foundation for future planning. Once each individual action is examined either as being satisfactory for the plan and will be recorded as a positive outcome, or as a failure or the need for more improvement, Then the plan or part of the plan feeds back to the cycle with a revised plan, alongside other new and existing plans until a satisfactory result has been achieved with that aspect of the work. The action research model summarised above is presented in Figure 6.

84 Figure 6- The current study’s action research model

85

As the research situation demands responsiveness during the research project; the cyclic process model, moving towards a better understanding and improved implementation based on evaluation and critical reflection with the overall aims of positive change (Figure 6). Within this model each act/plan would have its own cyclical process and there will be overlap between various implementations, there will be case-by-case parallel cycles with different time sequences that occur during the research timeline but cannot always be assigned neatly to a specific action. Accordingly, the acts are not equally weighted as each act follows a different set of practices. Furthermore, the model also takes into account that action research can lead to more lengthy and substantial studies within research settings (Costello, 2003; O’Leary, 2004; Coghlan and Brannick, 2010). O’Leary (2004) argued that action research is an experiential learning approach to continual change and improvement that includes consideration of the understanding developed in the earlier cycles.