My methodology

My methodology is educational action research underpinned by case study; that of two separate methodologies which are sometimes enveloped into one (Stenhouse in Winston 2006 :42 , Cohen et al 2007: 255, Thomas 2011: 36 ). Both of these methodologies fit comfortably within the working conditions of teaching and acting.

It is important to me that my research study is of a qualitative nature. As there is little documented knowledge about the experiences of acting students with dyslexia, nor teachers’ testimonies about facilitating this predicament, I think it imperative that I really listen to what my participants say and notice how they are behaving, and record their words and actions in a detailed thick description (Geertz 1973). Clifford Geertz’s label of a ‘thick description’ does not imply a simple recording of events, but is about situating them in their context, so that constructions of meaning are gained through ‘seeing the full picture’ – an understanding depending on the situation they are happening in (ibid.9). In order to find out some answers to my research questions about the role of visual constructs in supporting dyslexia, the imprecise articulation of speech in some of those with dyslexia, how dyslexia is manifested in the participants’ approach and work, and the removal of barriers within my teaching practice for

those with dyslexia, I have to ask some additional questions, such as: what is

happening here? How are the participants affected by the experience? Why are they affected? What happens when? What is related to what? (Thomas 2011:35). What might be done to improve the situation? (McNiff 2013). Moreover, in order to answer the above questions, I need to transfer my attention away from the participants and onto myself, and to further enquire:

what do I know? How do I know what I know? With what voice do I share my perspective? (Patton 2002: 66.). As part of delivering the evidence to lead to my findings in answering the questions, it is essential to provide descriptions of my journey, and the rationale behind my interventions, based on what I see and respond to.

Each participant involved in this study is distinct. The creative work of an actor is transient, phenomenological, and therefore unlikely to be reproduced with identical outcomes. Such intricacies of human behaviour within this particular context, (the study of those with dyslexic barriers reading and acting Shakespeare), cannot be captured satisfactorily for the aims of this study by evaluating the observations through quantitative measurements of numbers and averages.

This places my choice of methods within the ‘lived experience’ of a case study environment, based within ‘bounded’ and ‘naturally occurring circumstances’ (Simons 2009: 4). Although case study can be a study of ‘the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important circumstances’ (Stake 1995: xi), my study involves observing twelve individuals as separate units, as an integral part of a larger unit. This is what Thomas calls a ‘nested case study’ (2011: 152) where each case can be contrasted with another, but is viewed within the context of the larger case. Simons refers to similar circumstances in the ‘collective case study’ where several different cases might be compared or linked together. Simons claims that case –study is especially appropriate for exploring educational practice, due to the contribution of participants’ self-knowledge, the gaining of knowledge about working in and between groups, and the opportunity for audiences to learn from it and inform practice, policy and decisions (2009:5). Before I can decide on any remedial action to attempt to assist my participants, I need to gain some substantial knowledge about them, and their dyslexia, through such collective case - studies.

In consideration of the methodology of action research, the premise of thinking through action is at the core of an actor’s psycho-physical discipline of embodied practice. When working with their students, the teacher of acting and

voice is rarely a passive observer. Teaching methods often require a participatory style, interacting with the students and the material. Both actors and teachers have a tacit knowing in their practice (Polanyi 1958) but can also reflect on their actions- in - practice, asking themselves: what am I doing? Why am I doing it? What do I hope to achieve? What is the effect of my actions? What did I learn through my actions? What happened when I acted? What action could I take to lead to a different outcome? As Neelands notes: ‘the reflective practitioner does not bracket off episodes of practice for scrutiny, rather s/he continuously and persistently practise on a daily basis across a professional lifetime’ (2006:19). This type of knowing - in - action, reflection- on –action and reflection- in – action (Schon 1987) is characteristic of acting and teaching practice, and is close to the methods inherent in action research. However, the methodology of action research works as a bridge between such practice and research (Somekh in Cohen et al 2007:298) producing theory and knowledge to illuminate the practice. That is why I consider action research as one of the most appropriate methodologies to provide answers to my questions.

There are a variety of action research interpretations (Costello 2003, Kerr & Anderson 2005). Alongside case study, it has proved an effective methodology for the professional development of teachers and the advancement of educational research (Altrichter et al 1993). Amongst the action research community, my research type might be labelled as participatory, education action research. According to Weiskopf & Laske cited in Cohen et al (2007:301), participatory action research identifies the researcher as a ‘...facilitator, guide, formulator and summarizer of knowledge, raiser of issues’. Noffke (Noffke & Somekh 2009: 21) has devised three headings under which to place the concerns of the educational action researcher, all of which encompass my own goals in this study. She names them as: the professional, (which is when teachers produce knowledge to add to a changing knowledge base), the personal, (which is when teachers focus primarily on their own development, skill and self-understanding), and the political, (which is when the researcher aims to inform social actions and democratic processes). McNiff underlines that there is no such ‘thing’ as action research, but that it is

a process of learning in relation to yourself and other people, and is therefore always educational (2013: 24), while Kemmis and Carr accentuate that action research is a form of social action; a process for emancipating practitioners from constraints of habit and ideology, so they might change social institutions (1986: 204).

The fundamental features of the approach are outlined below:

i) Action research is an active process, carried out by practitioners into

improving their own practice, or solving a problem, with the aim of enabling others. It is carried out by or with participants, but not on them (Kerr & Anderson, Reason & Bradbury 2006: xxv). The research activity is usually situated within the workplace, or the location of the identified problem.

ii) Action research is value – laden because the practitioner is trying

to ‘live in the direction of their own values’ (McNiff & Whitehead 2006:73).

iii) Action research is cyclical in nature, with a focus on change

(Costello 2003, McNiff 2013). The cycle usually follows this formulaic pattern:

 a problem is identified

 a possible solution is imagined

 action is taken to understand, evaluate and change it

 the action and outcomes are observed and reflected on and

an evaluation is made, with possible modification

 as this procedure progresses, data is gathered and evidence

is generated about what is happening, and how things are changing

The marriage of case study and action research forms a complementary methodology, with an alternation from one to the other, as the need arises. Although a case study about the participants could yield useful insights, the

carrying out of action research, (in participation with my students), offers an experimental space for possibilities of practical change. In expressing the challenges of action research, Altrichter et al say, [‘t] he rigour of action research is that practitioner-researchers must live with their mistakes of their theorising, feeling them in a very existential way as the situation ‘talks back’ (1993: 208). However, the acceptance of my possible failures as being a valuable part of the learning cycle, lends me a confidence to put forth my ideas.

modification reflection evaluation action

data collection observation

Figure 3.1The repeated action research circle (adapted from McNiff 2006:9) 3.1.3. Matters of validation

To assess the knowledge claims resulting from action research, McNiff advocates the involvement of a validation group (2013:137). At the commencement of my study, I drew up an external body of practitioners in the area of actor training or dyslexia to serve as such. However, as my research evolved, responding to the various participants, there seemed no fixed point where samples of the work might be abstracted, and from which those who were unfamiliar with the subject area and the participants, might make an informed judgement about the validity of knowledge claims. It therefore became problematic for me to attempt to involve the group with the details of

the study as it unfolded. My research with the participants was long –term, and fragile in its emergent nature; requiring a holistic understanding of each individual, an acquaintance with their subtle or erratic expositions, and their development within the situation. Additionally, the involvement of a large amount of background theory across a range of disciplines, meant that explanations about the work would have been necessarily demanding in focus and time, for those who were unfamiliar with the area. Furthermore, the dyslexia specialists had little knowledge of acting methods, nor the actor trainers about dyslexia.

To engender a trustworthiness and credibility about knowledge claims, Lincoln & Guba underline the need for a prolonged engagement in the field to understand the phenomenon within the context in which it is embedded, so that it might be ‘thoroughly appreciated and understood’ (1985: 310). They include the necessity for a ‘persistent observation’, so that one might identify those elements in the situation that are most relevant to the problem being pursued (ibid. 304). I believe that those who might be assessing the trustworthiness of my claims would also need to engage in such depth so as to be able to make an informed judgement. Greenwood & Levin affirm that communicating context-situated knowledge is a complex business, as the action research process is completely interlinked with the action, and deeply built into the context (Greenwood & Levin in Denzin & Lincoln 2008:73). To evaluate my attempts at improvements and understanding, I drew from closer sources. McNiff includes the role of the critical friend as valuable for peer-validation (2013:137). To counter the lack of an external validation group, Ken Robertson, senior lecturer in acting, based in the acting department at the Arts University, has taken on this pivotal role. Throughout this study, Robertson has observed almost all of the work of the participants, providing critical feedback. Robertson fulfils the requirement for a ‘prolonged engagement’ and ‘persistent observation’ as he has obtained a knowledge of the participants and their work throughout their time at the university. A former actor who has been a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company for several years, Robertson has an expertise of teaching in both Shakespeare and Stanislavski’s method, and is a qualified teacher of drama and art.

Although including peer debriefing as a requisite, Lincoln and Guba warn there is a danger of the de-briefer criticising from a conventional framework of standards, thereby not acknowledging the ‘other’ of the naturalistic researcher (1985:309). In practice, this is what occurred when I exposed the work of my participants to three of my peers.