Some preliminary guidance as to the potential complementarity of CHAT and action research is offered by Kanes (2004). Kanes speculates on the likely resonance of activity theory and action research in his tentative theorising of the conception of an emancipatory activity theory. Recognising the work of Carr and Kemmis (1986) in using Habermas’ critical-theoretical lens to develop action research, Kanes (ibid.) explains that this prospective alignment of CHAT and action research that creates the conditions for a reflexive and participatory critical praxis. Such praxis would meet
Engeström’s expectation of a ‘dialectical movement between activity level visions and action-level concretisations’ (Engeström, cited in Kanes, 2004). Such an alignment could offer:
activity theorya methodological frame more capable of multimodal, collaborative and diverse forms of situated analysis; and
action researcha theoretical perspective that encourages ‘more systematic rather than episodic principles of elaboration’, centred on ontogenetic, current and prospective activity, action and operation (rather than future action alone) (Kanes, ibid.).
Other tentative theorising on the potential complementarity of CHAT and action research is offered by Dixon-Krauss (2003). She asserts this melding creates the potential for dynamic mediation design for action research. This acts to systematise inquiry and democratises researcher-participant collaboration. Based on her own experiences in researching educational activity systems, she elucidates how action research can enhance the prospect for research to better understand the use and transformation of cultural artefacts. Through active researcher-practitioner
collaboration, researchers can better understand how such artefacts act to constrain, afford and expand mediated learning in activity systems. This is seen as a significant attraction in professional environments like education and health. Here individuals are strongly driven by professional imperatives and therefore understanding professional identity is critical to productive development through research activity. According to Dixon-Krauss (2003), the melding of CHAT and action research provides a more significant acknowledgement of the collaborative relationship that is essential to effective situated research. This gives analytical depth to the socially mediated subjectivities that practitioners necessarily bring to the research of activity systems.
So what does the nexus between CHAT and action research therefore mean in practice, and how might this relationship be conceptualised? Firstly, there is little evidence that any significant work has been done to explore the potential mechanics of the
relationship between the two currents. This is not entirely surprising given the dominating effect of interventionist methodologies of existing CHAT-based developmental research discussed earlier in this chapter. There is also some unease about the more open and prospective orientation of conventional forms of action research in CHAT-based research (Kanes, 2004). At the same time, caution is equally
essential to avoid what Engeström (1999a) has reasonably critiqued as the dangers of ‘naive forms of action research, idealizing so-called spontaneous ideas and efforts coming from practitioners’ (p. 35). This challenge points to need for a sophisticated conception of action research that is theoretically rooted in a CHAT framework and that can offer the potential of productive collaborative inquiry. Here action research is framed by a determined focus on object-orientated and culturally mediated activity systems.
However, explorations of the possible relationships between activity theory and action research methodologies have tended to analyse the potential of the theory to relate to the method rather than the method to the theory (Dixon-Krauss, 2003; Edwards, 2000; Kanes, 2004). Although Kanes (2004) has tentatively identified emancipatory activity theoryas a potential re-conceptualising, this model would seem to over privilege the action research method (and its origins in critical theory) over CHAT. Having said this, Kanes’ identification of parallels between Engeström’s expansive visibilizationand the conventional cyclical action research model is instructive. He points to a shared resonance that offers a potential way forward in aligning theory and method. Based on this broad staring point, Table 3.2 (below) offers a proposed framework developed for a CHAT informed-action research methodology. The Table also contrasts this approach with Engeström’s conventionaldevelopmental work researchmethodology.
Table 3.2: Comparisons of CHAT-based action research and developmental work research methodology
Dimension CHAT-based action research Developmental work research
Form
Participatory action research developed via critical engagement in complex social
practices. Framed beyond the localised-situated to identify
expansive potential.
Developmental ethnography (‘ethnography of trouble’) in abstract,
enacted in engagement with CHAT tools to explore emerging practice and
alternative conceptions.
Method
Integration of CHAT analytical framework (activity system analysis) within ongoing cycles
of action research
Process of four stage expansive visibilization (expert analysis, modelling prospective activity systems, design/implement, review)
Researchers
Practitioners guided conceptually to deepen beyond the local to the mediating role of
cultural-historical artefacts in shaping practice
External experts engaging local participants in exploring the development potential of the analysed
cultural historical activity system
Motive
Developmental change to collaborative activity to sustain improved practices and deepen
and extend theoretical knowledge of practice over time
Expansive visibilization and ‘radical localism’ to reform situated practice, with indistinct connection to broader
social domain
Sources of data – focus
Tensions, contradictions and expansive development potential critically developed in relational
agency (i.e. social/individual)
Tensions, contradictions and expansive potential theorised in activity analysis to incite expansive
visibilization process
Sustainability
Ongoing CHAT-based AR cycle and modelled social learning
practice
Effect of expansive changes made in intervention process
This framework seeks to enhance the developmental potential of the action research cycle by engaging research participants in the broader analysis of collective social practices (and what mediates these) to deepen theoretical understanding of practice. This form of complementarity is intended to generate a more robust collaborative framework of inquiry. It also has the objective of enhancing shared forms of learning in order to make the model more sustainable beyond the research intervention itself. Through this approach in an academic setting, this melding could also democratise the use of CHAT as a developmental tool. This is possible by increasing the levels of shared professional engagement in research processes, their outcomes and its further development. Importantly, this democratising effect could also serve to broaden the scope of data collection and analysis processes. This could act to frame more reflexive engagement between the researcher and participants, providing greater situated depth and enhanced recognition of the reciprocity of individual and social agency in collective activity.
This CHAT-based, action research also offers an accessible framework that could more directly engaging practitioners in complex social explorations of tensions and
contradictions inherent in social sites of enquiry such as that which is at the centre of this study. This has the potential of building a capability for sustaining learning beyond the immediate intervention stage (as implied by the episodic nature of developmental work research). This combination also offers the potential to enhance the utility of CHAT beyond the heuristic and exploratory.
This alignment could also provide a viable alternative for CHAT-based development research that may be potentially hindered by incidental forms of consultancy-based, developmental intervention. For instance, the introduction of action research
methodologies could limit participant dependence that often arises comes from such inherently hegemonic forms of interaction. This lessens the likelihood of the transient change characteristic of over-reliance on the outcomes of abstracted inquiry. Hence, collaborative action research practice framed within the conceptual domains of CHAT, potentially offers an improved accessibility and responsiveness of the theory as a robust and sustainable model of developmental learning. In order for CHAT to further develop as an accessible and responsive conceptual framework for exploring social activity, it is axiomatic that researchers are able to engage critical methodologies that reflect the
has the potential to further develop as such a legitimate complementary methodology for CHAT-based research, particularly in environments of professional practice like higher education.
Further details on the specific design of the CHAT-based, action research methodology is provided in Chapter Five, which introduces the two case studies included in this research.
Conclusion
This chapter introduced the overall conceptual and methodological design of this study. It also provided the framework used to develop the stages of the research. The study is founded on an analysis of the current ‘everyday’ state of student feedback and in the layers of history through which it is formed. The mediating effect of student feedback is further understood in its situated realities in a university setting, and finally a
consideration is given of the developmental potential of the student voice in the contexts of collective professional dialogue. The chapter also introduced the critical deviation the study proposes from conventional CHAT interventionist methodologies with the design of a CHAT-based, action research methodology. This combination has the potential of expanding the theoretical breadth of CHAT. However, equally its novel use also raises reasonable questions about the validity of this approach that this chapter sought to address. The following chapter moves to the next phase of this study. It considers the historical and cultural layers that have formed to shape the contemporary state of student feedback-based evaluation in Australian higher education. It analysis the social forces that have been critical in framing these layers of development and the mediating impact these have had on the evolving nature and use of student feedback.