Robustness and Validity of the Research

• Cycles of research are developmental not longitudinal; analysis defines the cycles stages rather than pre-set time bound delineation of cycles. • Participant engagement is across action – data collection – data

analysis. Analysis involves participant feedback and dialogue.

• Theoretical influence is represented through rhizoanalysis approaches such as ‘coming through’ that recognises instances of visceral and emotional response (Cumming, 2014, p.5) alongside a dialogic approach that reflects popular education’s prioritising of participant voice in developing generative themes familiar to McNiff’s generative evolutionary process.

• Recognising my own values and ethos in dialogue and exchanges with participants.

I apply Habermas’s (1976) contentions for social validity as applied to Action Research by McNiff and Whitehead (2009). Here, the emphasis is on meeting

four key criteria: comprehensibility; truthfulness; authenticity; appropriateness (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009, p.115). Each is embedded in the analytical process through prioritising of dialogue and the ability to contribute, discuss and disagree. The ongoing analytical process informs each cycle and avoids the dangers of a lone researcher making isolated interpretative summaries of the action. Although much analysis was completed alone, I was conscious of not contradicting the values of the, ‘inescapable presuppositions’ (Bamber & Crowther, 2012, p.188) in which every participant contribution had equal potential value.

The use of PAR recognises that, ‘conventional if unsupportable notions of objectivity’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2008, p.3) remain significant. This research makes determined efforts to be robust with evidence to support claims made. While aware of the issues around objectivity, the findings are presented as honest, valid and valuable accounts of the research. I have used four forms of validity (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009, p.81) that are appropriate to a PAR approach and equally able to assert the strength of the findings as would conventional measures.

Catalytic validity: linked to Freirean conscientization, catalytic validity is represented through clear focus around emancipation in terms of who owns learning spaces and empowerment of participants as agents of change, both influential to the research. Overt inclusion of these values allows participants to support or challenge these in their own reflections and responses.

Rhetorical validity: While my own word-choice is primary, other voices are used frequently. Whether from literature or participants, these are reported faithfully with the intention of revealing the story of action authentically.

Ironic validity: Significance in this Project comes from a questioning of common-sense and taken-for-granted approaches to education that continue to inform developments in online learning/teaching. The action we engage in is valid and appropriate in generating new themes and practices with no need to refer to established concepts to be considered worthwhile.

Educational validity: McNiff and Whitehead (2009) consider the emphasis of

this form of validity is on ‘encouraging others to think for themselves and make wise choices about how they should act’ (p.83). This research promotes a space for action but remains focussed on participants’ responses, individually and collectively. In addition, I relate to Stringer’s (2007) term of credibility (p.57) in asserting robustness in participant research. These include: prolonged engagement with dialogic depth occurring throughout the research and providing space for rich discussion; member checking insists on the participants being involved in the analysis of data with opportunity to comment on how they are represented in the findings; referential adequacy is achieved through the project taking place in a non-institutional space and able to avoid pre-determined schemas/conventions; persistent observation characterised by a deep and continuous engagement in both action and research. Triangulation has been achieved by asking a range of research questions that reveal different aspects of the project. This has been enhanced through varied data collection methods that allow multiple contributions and ensure the diversity of participant voices is represented.

Threats to Validity

Having established that participatory research is not only possible, but necessary to reveal often unheard voices, such an approach also presents challenges in relation to validity of the research. While McNiff and Whitehead and Stringer present a positive rationale for validity in participatory research, the practical encounters often revealed challenges in maintaining open channels of communication and inclusion. The hope was for an open and equal access to express experiences but this had to also contend with participants coming from unequal backgrounds and with varied experiences of being heard and speaking out. Despite continual reflection over the way dialogue was facilitated, some participants would be more familiar and confident with expressing their ideas than others. Multiple approaches, both online and face- to face, group and individual, written and spoken were made available to try and mitigate these differences. The extent to which participant background has shaped which voices were heard most is not easily defined.

An additional risk associated with PAR is that the main author may become as controlling as the oppressive forces from which emancipation is sought (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011, p.351). In attempting to remain comprehensible, appropriate and authentic it was clear that these terms varied between participants. The ways that findings were written and disseminated had to cover participants with strong academic backgrounds and others with little or no formal educational experience. For example, findings indicate disagreement between participants around quality and ethics. It was important that all voices were included regardless of the wide difference in previous experience and depth of understanding around the terms. In attempting to include all

participants, efforts were made to identify and mitigate academic terminology where this may prove an obstacle to understanding. In summarising the threats to validity, the approach has been to remain authentic to the holistic nature of the research and to strive toward trustworthiness. Helping participants feel valued and being authentic and honest about their contributions has allowed for as close a reflection to their experiences as was possible in the research relationship.