Conduct of action research 67

Action research commences with a “reconnaissance” (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988) or preliminary investigation (Street 2003), and proceeds through a recurring spiral of steps: planning, taking action/collecting data, analysis of data, reflection, replanning and so on (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988).

3.9.1 Preliminary investigation

A preliminary investigation enables practitioners who share a desire to bring about “some kind of improvement or change” (McTaggart 1991, p.170) to form an ARG as well as share and collect information about a “thematic concern” from their practice (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988). For the aged care staff members in this project, the thematic concern related to the possibilities for developing their practices to support a palliative approach to care. In addition, Street (2003, p.224) has explained that a preliminary investigation may involve a number of different activities such as a literature review, eliciting the perspectives of key stakeholders and collection of baseline data that could be used to show improvement. In seeking to gain an initial understanding of the situation in question, Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, p.54) asserted that practitioners should consider how their current practices have been constructed in terms of “language and discourse, activities and practices, social relationships and organisation”. (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988, p.56). Herein, a preliminary investigation should provide an “initial diagnosis” of key issues in relation to the thematic concern, and should also contain some early ideas about a potential collaborative plan of action (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988, p.64).

3.9.2 Planning action

Participants develop plans of action subsequent to the reconnaissance. This involves identifying opportunities for change from increased understandings of the key issues of concern. Action is “critically informed” and as such is a “thoughtful and careful variation on practice” (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988, p.12). Planning action is a prospective process; it needs to be done systematically and be situated in a rationale from the group’s understandings of the situation (Street 2003, p.224).

Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, p.12) have explained that critically informed action is “risky” and can encounter a range of real world (material, political) constraints. Therefore, action plans should be flexible and amenable to modification as new circumstances arise (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988; Street 1995, 2003). McNiff (1988, p.44) asserted that action research should have the capacity to deal with more than one problem at the same time and therefore plans should be able to accommodate “spin off” cycles from the main concern. Street (2003, p.225) cautioned that actioning more than one plan at a time may make it difficult to discern the source of the outcome. However, she (Street 2003, p.227) also acknowledged that some

projects may include sub-spirals that pursue specific objectives to develop more comprehensive understandings of the research problem and ways to address it. The planning phase takes into careful account the subjective and objective conditions of practice (Street 1995; Kemmis & McTaggart 1988; Street 2003). Street (2003, 1995) has highlighted that participants could develop an action plan by focusing on a series of key questions that assist them to (i) articulate what they want to change, including a rationale; (ii) plan systematic action; (iii) interrogate the feasibility of the plan; (iv) determine what data will be collected and how; (iv) decide what the expected outcomes will be; and (v) develop methods of monitoring and assessing the outcomes. According to Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, p.65), deciding where to first take action is a “strategic decision” on behalf of the group of participants. Therefore, planning action may consist of compromise on some levels in order to initially achieve “modest gains” (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988, p.12) that may then be built upon in later action cycles.

3.9.3 Taking action and observing/collecting data

During this stage of the action research cycle participants simultaneously engage in both practice and the action plan. Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, p.78) have asserted that it is not unusual, especially during the first action cycle, for unforeseen circumstances to arise and an early replan to be required. Regardless of whether the action is implemented as originally planned or modified early during the action process, monitoring of the action is essential. Observing the action and collecting data provides a basis “for later reflection and replanning” (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988, p.78). There are no set techniques for data collection, and a mixed method approach is often employed (Street 1995). Monitoring facilitates the collection of data about both the intended and unintended or unforseen effects of the action (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988; Street 1995). The researcher, keeping a personal/ professional journal, has also been flagged as another important source of data about the action.

3.9.4 Analysis of data and reflection

Depending on the types of data collected the researcher may undertake some of the initial analysis, where specific data analysis skills are required (e.g. statistical analysis of surveys) (Street 1995). Pragmatic decisions may also be made in relation to time and resourcing constraints (Street 1995) meaning that the researcher

resources the ARG by way of conducting a first level analysis of data. However, while the researcher may present an initial account of the findings may be presented to the participants by the researcher, Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, p.85) caution that the researcher provides a “dispassionate account” of what actually happened. However, further meaning-making must be a shared endeavour, so that the participants have an opportunity to reflect on the data. In the case of this project, RACF staff were able to reflect on their actions with respect to best-practice standards and wider socio-political conditions shaping their practice. Critical reflection on the data can reveal gaps between staff members’ “espoused theories” that represent what people say they do and their “theories in use” that become evident from their actions in practice (Argyris & Schon 1974; Friedman 2001). Reflection can foster the development of new insights among participants about their taken-for-granted assumptions, and habitual practices may be challenged. Critical, collaborative understandings can empower co-researchers to replan and implement action that pursues improvement through a successive spiral (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988).

Reflection also occurs on the research process itself and the roles of those participants involved. From this perspective “the interest is not only what is discovered but also how it was discovered” (Street 1995, p.226). At the completion of the reflective phase participants decided if a revised action plan from the previous cycle should proceed following amendment or whether a new action plan related to the areas of concern should be developed. Importantly, Waterman (2005) has emphasised that an iterative approach between action, analysis and critical reflection can facilitate the development and refinement of action-sensitive theory

The steps of planning, taking action/collecting data, analysis of data and reflection and planning are often presented as being discrete. However, in reality there may be overlap between some of the stages and the process is likely to be “more fluid, open and responsive” (Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998 p.21).