Does Action Research Have a Future? A Reply to Higgins

Abstract

This paper presents a view of action research (AR) as a valuable way in which teachers can pose fertile questions and engage in inquiry with transformative possibilities. This counters claims of its being at best a sterile method of teacher research and at worst a perilous trap for teachers.Chris Higgins has argued that AR has lost its original intention of empowering teachers and sealing the theory practice divide. He claims that it has degenerated into a method devoid of thought. In its social science versions, it is harmful to the teacher-student relationship and teachers have been mislead into an impoverished idea of professional development. The impossible challenge for action research is to recover its original intention; impossible because the landscape of educational policy militates against it.The authors challenge Higgin's deep pessimism, his versions of AR and his negative account of the intellectual capacity of teachers. We argue that AR does empower teachers, integrates theory and practice and is alive and well, even though conditions in schools are not optimum. This argument is exemplified with numerous illustrations of actual AR projects, which evidence teachers' participatory and collaborative work, in which they engage in positive change. There is scope for teachers wishing to develop 'customised' AR projects of their own in current conditions which have transformative potential in changing the practice of the individual teacher. This in turn supports building and participating in a 'community of practice', which strengthens the communal endeavour to contribute to good teaching and good education.

Modelling cetacean morbillivirus outbreaks in an endangered killer whale population

“…As a result of consistently low food availability, visibly poor body condition is widespread in this population (Fearnbach et al 2018), as is hormonal evidence of nutritional stress (Ayres et al 2012). Poor nutrition may increase this population's vulnerability to CeMV and other pathogens (Aguilar & Raga 1993). While inbreeding and PCB concentration are also of concern due to their link to CeMV outbreaks (Aguilar & Borrell 1994;Valsecchi et al 2003), these hazards are less readily addressed by conservation efforts.…”

“…This virus is highly infectious, with high potential for interspecies transmission (Jo et al 2018) and is likely transmitted via the respiratory tract through the inhalation of aerosolized virus (Van Bressem et al 2014). Several factors may increase a population's susceptibility to CeMV, including high polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) load (Aguilar & Borrell 1994), poor nutrition (Aguilar & Raga 1993) and inbreeding (Valsecchi et al 2003).…”

Libyan teachers as transitionalist pragmatists: conceptualising a path out of the peacebuilding narrative in conflict-affected contexts

“…In other words, it would be worthwhile to focus on teachers too (even while students are also important), as they are important day-to-day drivers of education. However, this call is not yet an invitation to study and improve what teachers do in Libya; instead, it would be interesting to consider the importance of what teachers believe and think about the aims of education, and their judgements based on experience and reflection (Biesta, 2017;Biesta et al, 2015;Foreman-Peck and Heilbronn, 2018;Knowles and Castro, 2019;Reichert et al, 2021;Waghid and Davids, 2014).…”

Tackling a lingering infirmity: On the nature and warrant of action research in education

“…Higgins argues that conventional social science conceptions of knowledge have distorted action research, and he concludes that action research is ‘an important intervention that has largely fossilized into a banner or method’ (p. 235). Higgins' analyses and conclusions have drawn criticisms (Foreman‐Peck & Heilbronn, 2018), particularly relating to the alleged failure on his part to distinguish clearly between action research and critical reflection, and also for his alleged pessimism (p. 133ff). But Higgins' critique has also been foreshadowed in key respects by Carr and Kemmis (2005, p. 351).…”