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.