Action Research and Autoethnography
Literature Review: Autoethnography and Action Research
Introduction
Within this literature review two emerging research methodologies will be discussed: Action research and autoethnography. Each of these methodologies has their own purposes, powers and strengths and both differ from other traditional forms of academic research. To gain an understanding of these methodologies, 16 pieces of empirical research have been used. Although two articles are dated back to the 1990s, the majority of research is from the 2000s and onward. This review will begin by discussing action research. First, there will be an analysis of the research platform which will demonstrate the stance, approaches, positioning and history behind this methodology. Second, the role of the researcher will be critiqued which will reveal the researcher’s responsibilities, obligations and functions. Autoethnography will then take the same format as action research. First there will be an analysis of its research platform, then second, a critique of the researcher’s role. Finally there will be a discussion which puts both methodologies into perspective for my own future research. Subheadings will be used throughout the review to guide the reader.
Action research platform
In the 1940s, Kurt Lewin coined the term ‘action research’. Within this new paradigm, Lewin included two ideas. First, action research was to be based on knowledge which was created through academic research. Second, it was to be based on knowledge which was created while intervening in practice (Bargal, 2008). Although this term was coined 70 odd years ago, this methodology is described as being emergent in nature (Costello, 2011). It is a methodology which has shown to constantly develop over time through the introduction of new models, cycles and justifications for its stance in social science research. Particularly in the last 15 years, the recognition of action research as a valued methodology has changed. In 1999, Avison et
Introduction
Within this literature review two emerging research methodologies will be discussed: Action research and autoethnography. Each of these methodologies has their own purposes, powers and strengths and both differ from other traditional forms of academic research. To gain an understanding of these methodologies, 16 pieces of empirical research have been used. Although two articles are dated back to the 1990s, the majority of research is from the 2000s and onward. This review will begin by discussing action research. First, there will be an analysis of the research platform which will demonstrate the stance, approaches, positioning and history behind this methodology. Second, the role of the researcher will be critiqued which will reveal the researcher’s responsibilities, obligations and functions. Autoethnography will then take the same format as action research. First there will be an analysis of its research platform, then second, a critique of the researcher’s role. Finally there will be a discussion which puts both methodologies into perspective for my own future research. Subheadings will be used throughout the review to guide the reader.
Action research platform
In the 1940s, Kurt Lewin coined the term ‘action research’. Within this new paradigm, Lewin included two ideas. First, action research was to be based on knowledge which was created through academic research. Second, it was to be based on knowledge which was created while intervening in practice (Bargal, 2008). Although this term was coined 70 odd years ago, this methodology is described as being emergent in nature (Costello, 2011). It is a methodology which has shown to constantly develop over time through the introduction of new models, cycles and justifications for its stance in social science research. Particularly in the last 15 years, the recognition of action research as a valued methodology has changed. In 1999, Avison et
References: Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373-395. Atkinson, P. (2006). Rescuing autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 400-404 Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M., & Nielsen, P. (1999). Action research. Communications of ACM, 42(1), 94-97 Bargal, D. (2008). Action research: A paradigm for achieving social change. Small Group Research, 39(1), 17-27. Cann, C., & DeMeulenaere, E. (2012). Critical con-constructed autoethnography. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 12(2), 146-158. Chang, H. (2012). Autoethnographies method and creating autoethnographies. Qualitative Health Research, 22(2), 285-287 Childers, S. (2008). Methodology, praxis, and autoethnography: A review of getting lost. Educational researcher, 37(5), 298-301. Costello, P. (2011). Effective Action Research: Developing Reflective Thinking and Practice. London: Continuum International Davies, P. (2012). Me me me: The use of first person in academic writing and some reflections on subjective analyses of personal experiences Doty, R. (2010). Autoethnography making human connections. Review of International Studies, 36(3), 1047-1050. Ellis, C. (1999). Heartfelt autoethnography. Qualitative health research, 9(5), 669-683. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic i: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman and Littlefield Ellis, C. (2009). Autoethnography as method (review). Project Muse, 32(2), 360-363. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2006). Analysing analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 429-449. Ellis, C., Adams, T., & Bochner, A. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum: Qualitative Research, 12(1), 1-13. Groundwater-Smith, S. (2009). Action research. Educational Action Research, 17(3), 479- 481. Lee, K. (2008). While whispers. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(6), 896-900. Mackenzie, J., Tan, P., Hoverman, S., & Baldwin, C. (2012). The value, and limitations of participatory action research methodology Milton-Brkich, K., Shumbera, K., & Beran, B. (2010). How to create your own professional development experience Palak, D. (2013). An inquiry into action research: Teaching and doing action research for the first time Rademaker, L. (2013). Action research as formalised reflection. Inquiry in Education, 4(1), 1- 4. Reed-Danahay, D. (2009). Anthropologists, education, and autoethnography. Reviews in Anthropology, 38, 28-47 Smith-Sullivan, K. (2008). The autoethnographic call: Current considerations and possible futures (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Taber, N. (2010). Institutional ethnography, autoethnography, and narrative: an argument for incorporating multiple methodologies Weaver-Hightower, M. (2012). Waltzing Matilda: An autoethnography of a father’s stillbirth. Journal of Contemporary ethnography, 41(4), 462-491.