Dan Harris Memo #5

Mess in Action Research

I like the way the author phrased he experience with action research as "highlighting and studying the problem as opposed to researching the solution."  Framing action research in this way helps me build a better understanding of the difference between action research and quantitative education research.  

I also identify with the author's discomfort with the incongruity between how they experienced their work and how they are representing it to the world.  I actually feel the same way when I tell people, especially my coaches, about my classroom.  Last year I really did not like when I felt like I was not accurately representing what was going on in my classroom.  Usually it was because it's impossible to convey everything just by telling people about it, but in some cases, it was relieving for my coaches to come into my class so that I did not feel the tension between reality and the "tidied" version of my classroom.  

It is interesting reading about this very meta-discussion about action research.  Flexibility vs. Structure/Planning is a big point of conflict for the sub-group.  When the group reflects on the literature on action research, the talk about planning the direction of the research really makes them question their own action research process.  The question I have is - is "having a plan" just a function of writing a final product and picking a plan out of research which in reality was a lot less linear?  Are the authors of the action research literature, when they write about having a plan, just trying to write mimic quantitative studies where there was a problem, then research, then a solution?  

From my experience doing research with a Professor, while I was an undergrad, I found that traditional researchers pursue this idea of "good research" with the goal of getting published in a well respected peer-reviewed journal.  It seems that the group is struggling with the lack of alignment between what they feel their process has been and these "models" of action research that they read about.  I also would feel a lack of confidence in my work if I felt that my process wasn't pursuing the "right" goal.  It seems like people pursuing traditional research have an easier time feeling confident because they don't have to acknowledge the messiness of it.  

Now that I'm writing this, it seems that there may not be that much difference between traditional research and action research besides how traditional research obscures the messiness of the whole process until there is a clear, marketable finding.  Messiness is seen as poor research that didn't clearly isolate one problem or reach a meaningful conclusion.  In action research, there is a real departure from the generic scientific method.  I disagree with the opinion that we do not have a way of intelligibly articulating the messy research process.  I think great things can come from getting a glimpse into others' thinking processes.  It seems weird to think of that as research, because it is so not results oriented, but I think that is the true value in action research.