Luckily, I have an extension for my submission and presentation, therefore, am not presenting to the original deadline of 12 January 2022. However, I attended the morning session (I sadly couldn’t attend the full day due to work commitments) to watch my peers’ presentations and to contribute where appropriate with feedback or questions. Below are my notes following my peers’ presentations, with some reminders for myself for when I present on 2 February 2022.
A mark sheet was shared with the group as a reminder of what tutors assess the presentations against.
Participant Name & Overall grade
Learning Outcome 1: Identify a topic for inquiry, justifying its professional significance. [Knowledge]
Learning Outcome 2: Investigate methods of enquiry appropriate to the specific contexts of the topic. [Process]
Learning Outcome 3: Conduct a scholarly enquiry. [Enquiry]
Learning Outcome 4: Present project findings in a coherent, context-sensitive manner. [Communication]
Name: Overall grade:
Every student has a 30 minute slot, 10 minutes to present with a 8 minute timing reminder.
Questions at the end from peers are there to support the presenter, particularly if there were parts of the learning outcome that you feel the presenter did not cover in the presentation. This could be around research methods or reflections on their research methods.
Notes: A good way of splitting the presentation is as follows:
introduce self and the research topic of SiP
research topic and rational (introduction)
aims for the research (future thinking)
definition/s of key words
enquiry – evidencing the rational of research (literature review)
consideration of research methods (methodology)
method of research 1 (research & reflections)
method of research 2 (research & further reflections)
conclusive findings and next steps (conclusion)
references (bibliography)
‘kindness’, ‘being kind’ is a key value Catherine promotes in the practice of research and engagement on the program. If anyone is interested there is an interesting book by psychoanalyst Adam Phillips and Historian Barbara Taylor on the history and genealogy of kindness as a concept and practice. Phillips brings a psychoanalytic take but interesting hive.co.uk/Product/Adam-Phillips/On-Kindness/358152
John O’Reilly in the chat box, presentation day
I enjoyed watching my peers presentations, however, it made me feel very much on edge when comparing the level or depth of research some of my peers had undertaken over this unit. It made me consider how I have been incredibly busy, but perhaps I could have prioritised my SiP a little more than I had done. However, I am hopeful that my research enquiry continues within my role in the Outreach team as I am always keen to seek improvements in practices.
I had signed up to a presentation session with Catherine, Selina and Frankie. Sadly, I was very short on time due to work commitments and was unable to prepare my presentation, however, I attended the session so that I could feedback on my peers’ presentations. I felt ashamed in being behind, but I was reassured that I still had time to catch up and that my contributions in these group tutorials were valuable and appreciated.
The only primary research I had conducted so far was the one UAL staff interview. I had been writing and re-writing the survey questions for the UAL Insights students who had enrolled as an UAL undergraduate student, but was promptly reminded by Catherine that it was coming to the end of the first term so it was imperative to get this sent out immediately. It was also recommended that I add a section in the survey where I ask students who are interested in a follow-up interview to leave their contact information. This could be a further way of retrieving more qualitative data, and a chance for students to elaborate on their answers in more depth.
I was also reminded to share my Workflow page with the group, as although I had created the Workflow page, it was not visible to the tutors. I have now adjusted it so that my page is visible to the tutors.
There’s a lot to do!
Below is the final and signed off version of the SiP Ethical Enquiry Form. I was most pleased with the feedback received on this as it indicated my attention to detail around the ethical implications of researching this topic in the position that I am in, and highlighted my care towards both the subject and towards the students. I feel as I have not been prompted to complete a Participant Information Sheet or Consent Form as part of my SiP, my method of explaining by email and by starting any interview off with a disclaimer will suffice.
It’s clear the project is coming from a place that really matters to you, the institution and the students. The care you have taken over the different kinds of relationality created by the practice of your research is thought provoking.
I love the details of each step: the tools and platforms you are using; the different participants and their different institutional contexts; the life-cycle of the data, how long this data will exist in the world and under what conditions. And it’s all composed with the ethical drive behind you project which informs the ethical consideration you give to each section.
Your work highights and resonates with the dynamic aspect of action research, which conventionally is represented pictorially as a cycle but for me is a series of moving parts – you, the researcher question, the participants, the methods, the tools.
feedback received from John O’Reilly on the Ethical Enquiry Form
You can probably imagine, the memes were my additions – I feel memes and gifs bring a bit of humour into something which may be considered a little dry… It was interesting to see different images of ‘researchers’, and there seemed to be a few entries of children or babies researching through taste and touch.
It was interesting to see how the images could then be categorised. Potential categories other than human / non-human were:
Digital & analogue
Sensory & digital
Experiential – taste / play / listen
Play / focused vs structured / unstructured
Subjective vs factual/scientific
Next, we looked at data poetry as a mode of research analysis. The idea was to create a poem from the dataset you were given, without adjusting the order of words or adding words.
I was apprehensive at first about the idea of using poetry as a form of data analysis, but when we split off into our smaller groups (I was with Megan and Deborah) and were analysing the dialogue we had chosen out of those provided, a beautiful poem had emerged. Although grammatically incorrect, the gist of what was expressed in the dialogue was well captured. Our process was to look through the raw data and assess what seemed to be key words or phrases, eliminating the unnecessary filler words in sentences. We were left with a string of profound words, what we decided to call our data poem. You can see what our working document here, and the rest of the group’s data poetry here. It was interesting to see how we all tackled the task in different ways.
The battle of neoliberal universities
Identity formation, university studies, focus, mature, better critically engaged student, pain the ass.
Deeply flawed institutions Business model, Dominate It’ problematic I was on the other side for a change.
acutely aware students short changed I don’t think it’s unique not enough contact time.
universities making money companies, corporations Students, Resource maximised profit.
going to university Disconnect what students are sold what they pay for, what they receive.
by Frances, Megan and Deborah
Finally, we looked at thematic coding as a form of data analysis. Although it sounds simple, I find thematic coding difficult to do as you continuously question the validity of your themes. Are you creating too many themes within the data, are you extracting the right bits? Nevertheless, we tackled the task given as another small group:
Personally, I felt like the themes which were pulled were more around key topics which was covered in the dialogue, and perhaps that is how I should be looking at what thematic analysis is. Here’s our themes we came up with.
I appreciate that thematic analysis is a good data analysis method, and hope to be using it with my dataset form the survey (and follow-up interview/s) to see if there are recurring experiences or views.
Sadly, I had to leave early during this session due to an appointment at the Japanese Embassy, however, I was able to catch up with what I missed asynchronously.
A very useful reminder on assessed elements during the presentation:
I also saw that there was a collated Padlet created during the session of my peers’ opinions on what bad presentation practice is. I had a read through and I’m very conscious of the fact that I will need to ensure I don’t have too much text on my slides, that I avoid being ‘too dry’ (no monotone voice) and do not assume the knowledge of the audience. Here’s to hoping that I can pull this off.
During the discussion around Selina’s work, I noted down two researchers/theorists to consider: Theo Gilbert on compassionatepedagogy; and David Graeber on care.
I was told that the question of belonging needs teasing out, and that I should seek definitions of belonging and transition. This was a great suggestion as it could help root my research. My reference to Bourdieu was noted as too broad, and in the session I had explained that I was referring to his notion around cultural capital which takes time to cultivate, and is often impacted by other forms of capital such as economic or social.
Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier.
Bourdieu, P., 2002 [1979] p.6
My intention was to consider the levels of capital an Insights student would have, and to take into consideration how levels of belonging may differ amongst the students who come equipped with varying levels of capital; be that economic, social or cultural capital. There is much research around underrepresented students (of which UAL Insights students would fall into the category of) experiencing varying barriers whilst at university and into the labour market and how easily (or not) they can obtain such capital (Mould, 2018; Brook, O’Brien and Taylor 2018; Brook, O’Brien and Taylor 2020).
I felt a little all over the place when giving the presentation as I felt I hadn’t made much progress, but I found the process of discussing my research intentions to be positive and encouraging. Feedback from my peers gave me questions for me to consider such as: how many Insights students drop out after enrolling onto their BA; what did CCW cover in the 2-day workshop called Insights Onsites; is there a tension between institutional structures/priorities and needs and the individual student drive? These were all things to consider as I progressed my research.
Following the session, I went to find some published work by Gilbert and Graeber. I was interested to read them after they were mentioned in the group tutorial.
Theo Gilbert is an Associate Professor in Learning and Teaching at University of Hertfordshire, and seems to have published a few papers around the benefits of collaboration in learning and assessment design, and the understanding of compassion to student mental wellbeing. I read his chapter published in The Pedagogy of Compassion at the Heart of Higher Education titled ‘When Looking Is Allowed: What Compassionate Group Work Looks Like in a UK University’ (2017).
Compassion means the noticing of social or physical distress to others and the commitment to reduce or prevent that distress.
Gilbert, T. 2017, p.189
Gilbert reflects on the neoliberal drift of higher education towards private enterprise and away from its primary remit to serve the public good. He suggests how this steers students away from noticing the distress or disadvantaging of fellow students in order to focus on self and self-esteem through constant comparison of one’s performance against another (2017, p.190). This, he notes, contributes to the unmanageable levels of student anxiety and depression. Through his research undertaken at University of Hertfordshire, Gilbert evidenced how students who studied under a collaborative pedagogy had experienced a positive impact on critical thinking, explained by students as ‘increased feelings of social belonging/personal safeness, and reduction of social anxiety in seminar discussion groups’ (2017, p.191).
This indicates how a sense of belonging can positively impact a student’s confidence and contributions, furthering their academic process. The paper examines modes of eye contact and the importance of micro-ethnography, where students are sensitive and responsive to others needs. This form of social care plays a key role in breaking away from the paradigm of individualism that higher education has drifted towards, and prepares ‘compassionate graduates for a world in conflict’ (p.200). Reflecting on this reading, I could argue that this is the form of care that I am trying to bring to the UAL Insights students who have joined UAL as an undergraduate, to ensure that they have a sense of belonging within the university and to have a community which can be sensitive and responsive to each others needs.
The article by David Graeber I read was an emotive opinion piece published in The Guardian titled Caring too much. That’s the curse of the working classes. (2014). It suggests that the working class are the caring class, with their work often playing a caring role within society. Although an interesting read, I felt it was not necessarily relevant to my research.
References:
Bourdieu, P. and Bourdieu, P. (2002) Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. 11. print. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press.
Brook, O., O’Brien, D. and Taylor, M. (2018) Panic! Social Class, Taste and Inequalities in the Creative Industries. Available at: https://createlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Panic-Social-Class-Taste-and-Inequalities-in-the-Creative-Industries1.pdf (Accessed: 10 November 2021).
Brook, O., O’Brien, D. and Taylor, M. (2020) Culture is bad for you: Inequality in the cultural and creative industries. Manchester University Press.
Gilbert, T. (2017) ‘When Looking Is Allowed: What Compassionate Group Work Looks Like in a UK University’, in Gibbs, P. (ed.) The Pedagogy of Compassion at the Heart of Higher Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 189–202. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57783-8_13.
Graeber, D. (2014) ‘Caring too much. That’s the curse of the working classes’, The Guardian, 26 March. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/26/caring-curse-working-class-austerity-solidarity-scourge (Accessed: 10 November 2021).
✓ Prepare a 10 minute ‘Work in Progress’ presentation for formative review in the tutorial. This will take place on Wednesday 10 November between 9.30-2.30pm.
I signed up to a tutorial time slot for 10 November 2021 at 9.30am, and will be presenting to Catherine, Selina and John.
We started the session off by recapping Action Research and then mapping our actions to the Action Research cycle. It was evident through this process that I was not going to be completing the full cycle of Action Research process through implementation, but rather looking at how best to review a current process in time for the following year.
As my research is looking at the experiences of Insights students and their transition into the first year of their degree, change is not something I can implement for the beginning of the experience – rather, I can implement small changes during the academic year, but aim to have proposals of what we could do for the next set of Insights students joining their undergraduate course. I hope to learn from experiences of current students to spot areas for improvement for future students.
The session was good in reminding us that this research will not be a linear process. Action research is a lot about returning to the question and adapting it as we progress, assessing and reflecting on the process as we go. This was described as ‘meshwork’.
A ‘meshwork’ metaphor can help explain how individuals and knowledges are ‘entanglements’ that emerge through encounters with others. […] the ‘meshwork’ metaphor may sensitize researchers to the value of emergent outcomes, differences between research objectives and unintended consequences, and relational skills of encountering, witnessing, and responsiveness.
(Klenk, 2018)
This was a good reminder to be flexible throughout my research, to adapt as and when necessary to the needs of the research process as they arise. The process should be organic.
We were then examining what a literature review was, and how to analyse the logic of an article. It was emphasised not to be descriptive, rather to reflect on the reading(s) done and to analyse it – this is something I often struggle with as the descriptive nature really helps with pinning my understanding of a subject. I have learnt it is useful to contextualise the reading, whether that be about the time in which it was written, who by and for, etc. This is a good way to analyse the text, helping you to question its validity for your research or beyond. It’s also good practice to synthesise the arguments of others (or opposing views) in the research.
Finally, we examined sampling, and the varying approaches to sampling.
For the purpose of my research, I will be using the purposive sampling method as I am targeting key Insights student participants to understand their lived experiences. I am also targeting key UAL members of staff who are knowledgeable around the research area to gain a deeper understanding for my analysis. Random sampling would be an ideal method for something such as understanding the average salary across a nation, or city / borough. There would have also been a random sampling through Ipsos Mori during the Covid19 pandemic to assess a rough percentage of the population who has a positive case of coronavirus.
Overall, I found this session useful:
in being reassured that we are not expected to complete a full Action Research cycle
to lead the research with open arms through meshwork (be led by the unexpected, be responsive
knowing that I need to prepare a WIP presentation to my tutorial group – I better ensure I am on-track to complete this research within a set timeframe.
References
Klenk, N. (2018) ‘From network to meshwork: Becoming attuned to difference in transdisciplinary environmental research encounters’, Environmental Science & Policy, 89, pp. 315–321. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.007.
This was more of an initial dialogue about our research intentions and at what point we were at with it. I thought that the tutorial was cancelled at first as I was sat in the blackboard collaborate room on my own, but it turned out that the wrong Frances Ross was contacted with a MS Teams link – a common mistake.
Luckily I was invited into a meeting about half-way through, and I joined Catherine, Michael B and Leslie to have a quick discussion around our ideas on our Self-initiated Project.
Catherine reassured us that a conversation can be a method choice, as long as there can be some design structure of a conversation. If I were to choose to do a focus group, 5 participants would be plenty. It seemed that my assumption that the sample size needed to be large was incorrect, and I was told this is only a small scale enquiry and that smaller sample sizes were adequate for it.
We were reminded that we should be responsive in our evaluation, changing the research direction as we go, followed by an overall evaluation.
In response to my project idea around the transition stage for Insights UAL students to undergraduate degree and their sense of belonging, I was told to focus my question even more perhaps to just the phenomenon around belonging within a higher education context. It was suggested that perhaps I look at the dropout or retention rate of Insights students on undergraduate degrees. Or, perhaps I could look at how to improve the transition stage, and to investigate the readings around high dropout rates in the first term. Reaching out to students at this stage could be seen as a form of Insights aftercare, as I am suggesting a valuable connection is lost with overwhelming transition to university. The research action could be to design an intervention or a social event, or even a work-in-progress group crit or pastoral conversations. It was recommended that I read into belonging interventions.
My next steps are to:
research what the current aftercare is for Insights students going onto UAL undergraduate degrees
write a survey for Insights students who have joined UAL as an undergraduate to assess what they accessed and their feeling of belonging to the class, course, college and university
research around belonging interventions.
write up an interview plan for UAL staff – structured or semi-structured interview.
✓ Sign up to a tutorial time slot that best suits you (via Moodle). ✓ Complete Ethical Enquiry Form. ✓ Create Action Plan. ✓ Join the ‘Self-initiated Project Autumn 2021 – cohort B1 (Catherine/John)’ Workflow group. ✓ Make a Workflow page for your SiP (✓) Start reading into your topic and making notes, pulling out quotations
I read the British Educational Research Association’s (BERA) ethical guidelines for educational educational research (BERA, 2018) and considered the responsibilities I have as a researcher to both my participants and research community. I used this research to aid my first draft of the ethical enquiry form.
I received some feedback from John O’Reilly who reminded me of the importance of not assuming the knowledge-base of the reader, and to remember to elaborate on what ‘Insights’ is for those who do not know. He also noted that I should get granular and more detailed around who exactly my research participants are to make it less abstract. An interesting suggestion was made about giving participating students the opportunity to make something which was then used as a vehicle from which the conversation is directed, however, I fear the time restraints restricts the potential for me to gather interested students in participating. This is something I will consider for future research as it’s a wonderful way of encouraging students who may find it difficult to express how they feel in words to express through their creativity.
Finally, I was most pleased with this comment about my attention and professionalism being so tangible. Perhaps I will consider my own perspectives (and potential unconscious or conscious biases) and positionality as the researcher within the methodology to reflect on how I came about with my own learning and awareness both before and during the research.
An action plan has been added to my Workflow page to help remind me of necessary tasks to complete along the way.
References
BERA (2018) BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-for-Educational-Research_4thEdn_2018.pdf?noredirect=1 (Accessed: 24 October 2021).
Action research is an open ended form of problem solving research where adaptability and continuous monitoring for any improvements is encouraged. McNiff (n.d.) notes that ‘you should aim to show not only the actions of your research, but also the learning involved’ and how ‘your learning is informed by your reflections on your actions’ indicating that a reflective approach is necessary for this project.
Action reflection necessary for action research is a cycle of the following:
Identify an area of practice to be investigated
Imagine a solution
Implement the solution
Evaluate the solution
Change practice in light of the evaluation (and begin at 1 again).
In doing your research you are aiming to make a claim that you have improved practice, so you do need to produce validated evidence to support that claim. This could be done through a discussion with a ‘critical friend’ who can critique your work and help you see it in a different light. ‘Critique is essential for helping us to evaluate the quality of the research.’
In summary, in my Self-initiated Project, I should:
identify an issue/problem with aim to improve it
continually evaluate the process (both the research and methods used) and reflect on this, adjusting where necessary
reflect on the process and own learning throughout
have a ‘critical friend’ or ‘critical colleague’ examine my research and provide feedback throughout the process.
‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews. (Irvine, Drew and Sainsbury, 2013)
As a task, I read the above titled paper in preparation for the session. I didn’t find the reading to be exciting, however, it reassured me that if I were to conduct any telephone interviews instead of doing it face-to-face, it would not be detrimental to my research process. I considered how the paper was lacking in the mid-point interview method between the face-to-face and telephone interviews: the online interview (e.g. via Microsoft Teams or Zoom). Although, it did reflect on that as something it was omitting from the research altogether. Having conducted these previously during the pandemic, I found these to have encouraged more openness as the interviewee was in their own, chosen surroundings, most likely to be more comfortable with sharing their views.
Traditional criticisms of conducting telephone interviews for qualitative interviewing suggests that it is not well suited to the task. Disadvantages include restrictions on developing a rapport and a ‘natural’ encounter with interviewee. However, these criticisms on the impact of the resulting data is not proven therefore underdeveloped. Instead, there are potential advantages of telephone interviews such as savings in time and travel cost, as well as greater anonymity around sensitive topics. This paper by Irvine et al. (2013) reflects on the interactional elements of a telephone and face-to-face interview and how telephone interviews effect the ‘rapport and the ‘naturalness’ of the interaction; comprehension and the transmission or interpretation of meaning; monitoring of responses and emotions; levels of interest and attention; and the duration of interviews’ (p.89).
The following table summarises the paper’s literature review of the positives/shortfalls of both telephone and face-to-face interviews, and it is clear that the shortfalls of telephone interviews have been considered by numerous papers.
Telephone Interviews +
Telephone Interviews –
Face-to-face Interviews +
Face-to-face Interviews –
In many cultures today, people are well-used to communicating by telephone both informally and in more formal settings. (p.90)
Absence of a visual encounter – loss of nonverbal data (body language and facial expressions), loss of contextual data (interviewee’s physical characteristics and interview setting), loss or distortion of verbal (spoken) data. (p.89)
F2F interaction compels more small talk, politeness routines, joking, nonverbal communication, and asides in which people can more fully express their humanity. (p.90)
Cost of time and travel to location as well as any refreshments purchased.
The context of the interview may be better delivered somewhat anonymously so verbal only may be beneficial.
Interviewers need very effective communication skills to make the interaction ‘natural’ while […] helping respondents stay on topic. (p.89)
Visual / nonverbal cues to pick up on for researchers to encourage interviewees to elaborate, leading to a more thoughtful response. (p.90)
Can be lengthy in comparison to a telephone interview (p.91)
Tends to be shorter than F2F communication as requires more concentration, therefore can be more to-the-point.
Lack of visual and nonverbal cues for the researcher to pick up on. Harder to show your interest and attention verbally without interrupting. (p.90)
Visual / nonverbal cues to show the interviewee as a researcher to show continued interest and attention. (p.91)
Difficult to assess silences or tone of voice (these can be misinterpreted). (p.91)
More demanding and fatiguing than F2F interview so tends to be shorter. Needs more acute concentration by interviewer. (p.91)
In summary, the research paper found that the completion of interviewee talk by the researcher was more common in face-to-face interviews; interviewee requests for clarification were slightly more common in telephone interviews; vocalised acknowledgements given by the researcher was less frequent in telephone interviews; interviewee checks on adequacy of their response to the researcher’s questions were more common in telephone in interviews; and telephone interviews tended to be shorter than face-to-face interviews.
Notes from Workshop 1
I found the workshop to be helpful in remembering to consider the different learning outcomes of the unit. We were also reminded to consider action research as a philosophy geared towards making the world a better place, and that our research should be a small enquiry that is relevant to the job that you dowhere you can make a decent change. This gave me some reassurance that the idea I had of focusing on the Insights student journey for the SiP would definitely be considered action research.
Learning Outcome 1: KNOWLEDGE What is your rationale for the choice of your topic? Not just your interest, who else says it’s valid? What fields does your topic sit across? How can you bring your knowledge into it?
Learning Outcome 2: PROCESS About the context of your enquiry, how are you going to research? Break down traditional research methods. Markers are not interested in rigorous devotion to research, rather, in becoming informed by the research processes. It’s good to expand on what went wrong.
Learning Outcome 3: ENQUIRY Evidence the rigour of your enquiry. Evidence that you have been reading and enquiring into your topic. Read into the methods that you are using. E.g. if you’re doing field notes – read into that and become more knowledgeable about that. Remember to reference, and reflect on what you learnt about the methods/methodology. Why does this research matter? Good to note their discipline when referencing (i.e. note their positionality. Philosopher/researcher/etc). Mapping your field of enquiry.
Learning Outcome 4: COMMUNICATION You will conclude the unit with a presentation to your peers. Ensure you communicate your learning throughout.
Action research is not quite the same thing as activist research (although some action research is activist in nature). Some PgCert candidates have previously opted to undertake ‘activist’ research of the ‘advocacy’ type for their projects. This is often valuable work that gives individuals a voice and tells an important story, but as it generally highlights an issue rather than addressing it, some may argue that it’s not action research. Having said that, advocacy can be interpreted as a form of action! It’s useful to recognise that research terminology and norms are as fluid as the research itself; this will help you to resist feeling overwhelmed by everything you think you don’t know. This WordPress site is a fantastic resource that includes a glossary of different types of action research (including activist modes like advocacy), and related readings. It’s a good starting point to help you to articulate your project in a way that will be meaningful to other researchers: https://activistresearchmethods.wordpress.com/about/
The important thing is that you use the SiP to find out something you didn’t know before, and make a contribution—however modest—to the field of practitioner research in educational settings. So, whatever your research aims to achieve, take the opportunity to experiment with interesting and creative research methods.
L Jordan by email to all PgCert students.
Some further notes from the session:
If you change your research enquiry, make sure you note why you changed and what decisions you made to get where you are.
One of the skills in research is reflecting on what is doable, and creating an enquiry that the students would be interested in participating in.
Does our personal enquiry have to be generalisable? – no. You are not being asked to make claims of legitimacy or to be peer reviewed for a journal article. Do not need to prove the validity of your results.
Method is the tool of collecting data (an individual way of eliciting / gathering / collecting research data), where as methodology (for action research) is cyclical, you gather evidence and data in different ways (e.g. focus groups, field notes, etc. It’s a set of methods that together constitute an approach to research). The field notes would be a method, but the action research is methodology. Action research is an approach.
Different approaches to knowledge making.
References
McNiff, J. (n.d.) Action Research Booklet. Available at: https://www.jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.asp (Accessed: 27 September 2021).
Irvine, A., Drew, P. and Sainsbury, R. (2013) ‘”Am I not answering your questions properly?” Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews’, Qualitative Research, 13(1), pp. 87–106. doi:10.1177/1468794112439086. (Accessed: 27 September 2021).
I thought the best way to begin the project would be to dissect the unit brief so that I can ensure my learning (or learning objectives) is clear and directed.
Learning Outcomes: Knowledge: Identify a topic for enquiry, justifyingitsprofessional significance Process: Investigate methods of enquiry appropriate to the specific contexts of the topic Enquiry: Conduct a scholarly enquiry Communication: Present project findings in a coherent, context-sensitive manner.
Assessment Format:
10-minute oral presentation of project findings
Accompanying presentation materials (including visuals or script) and relevant appendices (e.g. questionnaire responses, ethics form, data collection tools, references). // Workflow page
Brief:
create a Workflow page to document your work for the SiP
choose a focus for your action research project that relates to your teaching practice, disciplinary practice, research interests or academic leadership. Find and use relevant literature to justify your choice and to develop and articulate your understanding of your chosen topic.
complete an ethical enquiry form. Your project will comply with UAL’s Code of Practice on Research Ethics, which invites you to consider ‘the ethical implications of how and where the research is to be conducted, who’ll be involved and what they’ll be expected to undertake’.
consider and select appropriate methods of enquiry, which may include observation, journaling, visualisation, narrative enquiry, interview, questionnaire and more. Experiment with different methods.
document all your project work, including your evolving thinking around your topic and methods, and emerging findings, on your Self-initiated Project Workflow page.
attend fortnightly sessions with your tutorial group and/or the wider group
at the end of the unit, present your project for summative assessment to your peers and tutors. Your presentation should not exceed 10-minutes and should be in a form appropriate to the project’s content and context. Aspects to cover include:
original context / background;
rationale for selecting the topic;
reflection on research method/s used;
summary of project findings;
references to relevant literature (using the Harvard method).
Deadline: ISA+EC deadline: Wednesday 2 February 2022, submit Workflow page by 10am.
Keywords from Unit Assessment Brief: Small-scale scholarly enquiry Keep it realistic within the timeframe given (4 months to plan, research, execute and analyse)
Action Research (philosophy & methodology) – seeking transformative change in practice […] experiment with creative and novel research methods. Research should consist of at least two methods of research (e.g. questionnaire and focus group) which considers transforming something within your teaching/disciplinary practice/research interests.
Presentation day […] present project findings for assessment 10-minute presentation summarising research and key findings as part of assessment.
