Reflexivity in Emancipatory Action Research

This post explores the desired spontaneity of unrestrictive research, free of bias and theory-laden interpretation of the researcher, me. Hall's (1996) thoughts on reflexivity in emancipatory action research form the basis of this blog entry.

In order to investigate this thought let us remind ourselves of the outline of intended research and hypothesis which is as follows:

If the improvement of retention, attendance and learner cohesion is dependent upon the induction process, then following a specific two week induction programme will increase learner achievement and place the college comfortably within the 75th percentile.

As well as the areas of intended research and methods of data collection:

1. Attendance and retention levels of learners, post invitation for interview and attendance of induction, derived from sight of statistical evidence, questionnaires and interviews with curriculum coordinators and or line managers.
2. Cohesion of tutorial groups and current attendance levels obtained through sight of updated statistical evidence, questionnaires and interviews with lecturers of tutorial groups and curriculum coordinators.
   

Lastly, the desired outcome and second stage of research after triangulation of evidence:

1. A controlled test of a specific two-week induction programme involving three departments of similar ilk to minimize the inconsistencies of variables.
2. Department 'A' to follow their normal induction programme
3. Department 'B' to follow a specific two-week programme of induction as stipulated in an induction pack provided.
4. Department 'C' to follow the same specific programme of induction, but with additional training on its contents, together with strategies as to how to engage with disengaged learners to promote cohesion amongst tutorial groups.
5. Analysis of statistical evidence of attendance, retention and cohesion using the same questionnaires or similar if upon reflection revision where required.

It is my intention to remain as impartial as possible, but I am acutely aware that ones own understanding and perception of what is read, may be very different from that intended by the author. In the same light what is proposed as a course of action from a directive, might be interpreted and acted upon very differently by individuals in receipt of that instruction. In essence a variable based on perception. Furthermore, interpretations of what happened historically over a span of time, can be very subjective and argued unquestionably as established facts. This is due to the participants' unassailable empirical knowledge through his or her own interpretation of personal experiences. 

Hall's (1996) suggests that one should be aware of the natural way we identify, underpin and construct our rational and respondent behaviour towards everyday situations. She further elucidates that a post-structuralist approach 'makes way' for and 'builds toward' knowledge that can be viewed as challenging, worldly and evolving, or to use Hall's words, 'contested, temporal and emergent'. Hall also explains the importance of becoming self-aware and knowing when it is right to 'reveal' aspects of 'self' to help the reader comprehend and gain a holistic overview of the research from conception, process through to product.

To help with the empirical phase of research, in light of Hall's (1996) views, it would be prudent to find a critical friend to help develop emancipatory practice. It would appear that spontaneity is fundamental for unrestrictive research. Essential as it represents the basic philosophy surrounding the theoretical position underpinning emancipatory action research. 

It is also important to acknowledge Hall's (1996) views on the privileged position of the researcher. When looking for the signifier of what is signified, it will be hard to remain objective and put aside my own theory-laden views. This is due to ones own experience of delivering a specific two-week induction programme which has proved successful. Hall suggests that we assume superiority. Believing ourselves to be 'somehow more qualified to account for what is happening than those who are participating in the situation.' (Hall, 1996. pp.28-48). For this reason we need to have an understanding of experiential research and carefully expedite discernment and our position of inherent partiality.

References:

Hall, S. Chapter Three. Reflexivity in Emancipatory Action Research: Illustrating the Researcher's Constitutiveness. In: Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed) (1996) New Directions in Action Research. London, RoutledgeFalmer. pp. 28-48.