This article was downloaded by: [University of Warwick] On: 31 December 2013, At: 05:49 Publisher: Routledge Informa

Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Action Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

The researcher reflecting on her own role during action research

May Britt Postholm & Siw Skrvset
a a b

Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NNTU), Trondheim, Norway
b

Department of Education, The Arctic University of Norway, University of Troms, Troms, Norway Published online: 21 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: May Britt Postholm & Siw Skrvset (2013) The researcher reflecting on her own role during action research, Educational Action Research, 21:4, 506-518, DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2013.833798 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.833798

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Educational Action Research, 2013 Vol. 21, No. 4, 506518, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.833798

The researcher reecting on her own role during action research

May Britt Postholma* and Siw Skrvsetb
Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NNTU), Trondheim, Norway; bDepartment of Education, The Arctic University of Norway, University of Troms, Troms, Norway (Received 13 June 2011; accepted 8 January 2013)
a

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

This article focuses on the challenges and opportunities a researcher may encounter in practice, and presents four narratives that take the reader into situations which may arise when the researcher steps into the practice eld. Episodes that challenge the researcher both cognitively and emotionally are depicted in the narratives. The authors describe their experiences, the prior understanding they have when they enter the situations and the reactions these lead to. Experiences that are close to practice are placed in a theoretical context so they can be analysed and understood through the lens of theory. This text may function as a thinking tool for researchers about to enter the same researcher role, and it is thus relevant for other researchers who wish to be part of close research partnerships. Hopefully, the article will contribute to discussions that may prepare researchers for unpredictable events. Keywords: action research; researcher in practice; qualitative method; stories from practice; researcher s role

Introduction This article discusses aspects of the researchers role that may arise in the close cooperative relationship between researchers and practitioners. While close cooperation between a researcher and a practitioner can be challenging for the researcher, it also creates possibilities; for example, providing access to secret narratives (Connelly and Clandinin 1999). Based on experiences and ndings from previous action research (Postholm 2008a, 2008b; Skrvset 2008), we believe that the researcher has a multifaceted role which will challenge her cognitively and emotionally. In this article we will illuminate the challenges and opportunities we believe have relevance for other researchers who want to take part in close research partnerships (Tiller 2006). This paper may thus function as a thinking tool (Gudmundsdottir 1997, 2001) for researchers who are about to enter the same researcher role, because it can initiate discussions that may prepare researchers for unpredictable events. The aim of this article is to answer the following research question: How does the researcher have to adapt to the developing processes and continuously act in relation to the participants during the work? We will describe the actions that took place within the research projects, the method used and the theoretical framework
*Corresponding author. Email: may.britt.postholm@plu.ntnu.no
2013 Educational Action Research

Educational Action Research

507

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

for the current study for this text and then present four pictures in the form of narratives from the practice eld. These pictures are constructed on the basis of our researcher logs (Wildy and Clarke 2004). The narratives, told in the rst person, are followed by our own reections on the situations the narratives describe. We call this reection on ones own role in the research process the reexivity process. Narratives from the practice eld may be discussed according to their different perspectives and by using different concepts. We have chosen some terms that we feel illuminate the narratives well: symmetrical and complementary relations, emotions and appreciative intelligence. Presented in the theory section, these terms will then be used in the ensuing discussion to examine the researcher role in close partnerships. We conclude by summarising the challenges and opportunities connected to the researchers role in close partnerships where researchers and practitioners work closely together. But rst, we will present the action research projects. The action research projects Both of the projects we, the two academic researchers May Britt Postholm and Siw Skrvset, were working on (Postholm 2008a, 2008b; Skrvset 2008) were funded by the Norwegian Research Council under the Programme for Practice-based R&D (PRAKSISFOU 20062010). The aim was that researchers should help practitioners to develop their practice at the same time as this practice was being researched, and the overall research question for the two projects was: How can researchers and teachers and school leaders collaborate on creating a learning organization? The selected school where May Britt conducted her R&D work was situated in a suburban area and had students from the rst to 10th grades. The teachers at the school were divided into three teams. May Britt was connected with Team 3, consisting of teachers responsible for students in grades Eight to 10 (1316 years old); there are 12 teachers in this team. In addition to this, they also belong to their own class teams. The social climate among the teachers, and between the teachers and the students, was very good. The teachers in Team 3 were committed to their job and had energetic discussions on their students and their planning of the teaching processes. At the beginning of the project the teachers and May Britt formulated a research question together to guide and frame the work. The question they arrived at was: How can various work methods with the focus on learning strategies contribute to each students subject and social development? Both learning strategies and adapted education are key parts of the national curriculum, so the teachers could satisfy national requirements for learning and support for learning by choosing this research question as the framework for their teaching. Siws project, the Appreciative School Walk, took place in a school with about 30 teachers working with students from the rst to seventh grades. Over the course of eight months, Siw and the headmaster observed teaching, inspired by The Threeminute Classroom Walk-through (Downey et al. 2004). The teachers worked in teams of three, and each team was observed ve to six times in brief sequences (ve minutes each). In the follow-up meetings, the aim was to discuss the following: What did the headmaster and the researcher observe during those ve minutes? What was good, and why? What could be done differently, and how? The headmaster s aim was to learn more about what was actually going on in the classroom, and

508

M.B. Postholm and S. Skrvset

to obtain something real to discuss and reect on with the teachers. The researcher, Siw, wanted to explore what happened when a headmaster observed the teaching, which is not a common thing to do in Norway. It became clear that the teachers welcomed the observations and the follow-up meetings due to the appreciative focus from both the headmaster and the researcher. Data collection and analyses During the projects we had meetings with the teachers, we observed them, interviewed them and reected together with them on observed activities. We also wrote in our logbook, putting down our thoughts on the experiences from the practice eld the same day. This writing product, which according to Strauss and Corbin (1998) can be called a memo, represented our rst analysis of the activity in practice. In this way these notes could help us to be aware of our own subjectivity. We also collected data through observations and interviews. The analyses start at the same time the researcher enters the research eld (Postholm 2010), but the collected material freezes the activity so that it can be returned to and reected on. Compared with the other sources of information, these logbook entries had an extra dimension; while they included descriptions of the practice eld, they also described our own role in the research work. It had not been our intention to focus on our own role in the logbooks, but it was obvious that the work in practice affected us as human beings and we felt a need to reect on our experiences in the school. The logbooks were our tool for doing this. After several readings of the logbook we have chosen four stories from practice as our examples here because we have learned that they can be representative of what researchers can experience in practice together with teachers. The stories are unique and special because they represent actions that affected us, but we think they will also have meaning for other researchers and their understanding and handling of similar situations. We will now present the theoretical framework that is used to analyse and illuminate the narratives. Theoretical concepts Symmetrical and complementary relations In a research partnership, the relationship between the researcher and the practitioner is crucial. To illuminate this we will turn to reexivity, which we can describe briey as an introspective ability to reect and correct ones own thoughts, values and actions (Steen-Olsen and Eikseth 2009). This can be achieved if the researcher tries to deal objectively with her subjectivity (Heshusius 1994), or rather: if the researcher tries to become aware of her own prejudices and assumptions. At the same time as the researcher is inuencing the research process and the interpretation of the data material that is being collected, she is also part of the social world being studied. This means that an intersubjective knowledge is created between the practitioners in the eld under study and the researcher herself. In addition to the fact that a researcher will inuence the processes in a research project, an action researcher will be involved in processes that inuence her during the work. What is then included in the relation between an action researcher and a practitioner? Bateson (1972) states that the relation between one person and others and that between the person and his or her surroundings consist of feelings and emotions.

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

Educational Action Research

509

He nds two forms of relations, which he calls symmetrical and complementary. Symmetrical relations are where we give each other positive conrmation: people receive positive feedback on their thoughts and actions, which means that a good atmosphere is created, building therefore a climate of trust and condence. In complementary relations, the people in the relationship challenge each other. People who have fundamental trust in each other can challenge each other without hurting or scaring the others from taking part in the conversations. They welcome constructive and critical comments that help them to progress.

Emotions According to Vygotsky (2000), language is closely connected to verbal thought and vice versa. Language has a dual function, he claims. In addition to being a communicative link, it may contribute to developing thought. Both internal and external dialogues may lead to an extended understanding of themes of interest. What then, is part of thought, understanding and development? Vygotsky (2000) has in this context used the terms sense and meaning. Senses connected to a word are the sum of all psychological outcomes that can be connected to this word. The meaning of a word is part of this sum of all psychological outcomes and is the most stable part of the total sense. Sense will then be the overriding term that also includes understanding, meaning and emotions. The context gives a word its content, and the sense connected to the word will differ from one person to the next and from one situation to the next. Vygotsky (2000) used water as an example to explain how different substances, such as oxygen and hydrogen, individually do not have the same quality as the whole (water). It is only when hydrogen and oxygen are combined that water acquires its qualities. Such a holistic understanding can also be used for conversations between persons, where senses and meaning will be connected to the communication. What then do we communicate with our words: senses, or just cognitive understanding, or both? Our experience indicates that when it comes to our opinions and our understanding, the cognitive aspect is communicated to others, but we also feel our senses, perhaps without expressing them verbally. As researchers we have the opportunity to become aware of our own senses in connection with the research activities by putting into words the emotions that touch us and move in us. An encounter between human beings demands that we approach each other as human beings. If we are trying to fully understand each other, we must play on the strings we have. Emotions are also present during such meetings. Putting these emotions into words will help us become more aware of them, what they are doing to us, and what we can do with them. Vygotsky (2000) maintained that emotions or a will are always behind a thought, and that full understanding of another persons thoughts is only possible when we understand these emotions and their will. To understand another individuals language, it is not sufcient to understand her words; we must also understand her thoughts. But that is still not enough; we must also understand her motivation. This also applies to researchers conducting research when the aim is to reect on and attempt to understand their own role in their work. One of the tasks of an action researcher is to be an instigator in development processes (Postholm 2008a). This role is about creating involvement and a positive

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

510

M.B. Postholm and S. Skrvset

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

attitude in relation to changes. According to Hargreaves (2002), this involves creating good sense connected to the activity, which in our context comprises development activities. This means that the researcher is present with her whole self, cognitively and emotionally. With such openness, a researcher in her relationship with the practitioners may experience that statements and actions touch her. This means that the research not only inuences the eld and the practitioners, but also the researcher. In this context, reexivity becomes a key term the action researcher uses to try to understand herself and her own performance of the researcher role in the work. The development process is based on the fact that there must be a person who knows something about the eld being developed. In other words, development requires that something has been learnt. This means that the researcher must have expertise that makes her competent to head development processes. The next phases are conviction and decisiveness. The researcher must review her conviction, created in the encounter with the practitioners, and then arrive at decisions that can be realised. These decisions will normally also be taken together with the practitioners so that all the parties will be motivated to make an effort that will lead to changes. For action research this means how the parties must learn about the situation as it is and as it has been. If each stakeholder is to make an effort, motivation must be present. A requirement is then that each participant is convinced that the research topic is important. Their senses must be connected to the decision that has been made, and it must be meaningful. Appreciative intelligence Various branches of action research are characterised by the fundamental questions that are asked. In action research, these may be questions such as What is the key problem my work is about? In participatory action research, the question is rephrased thus: What can we do together to change the situation? Appreciative intelligence is a key aspect of a branch of action research called participatory and appreciative action and reection (Ghaye et al. 2008). Appreciation refers to value and giving value, but not in the sense of evaluation or control. There is a concrete positive and constructive dimension in this. For appreciative action research, the question is rephrased thus: What are our successes, and how can we amplify them to build and sustain a better future from valued aspects of the positive present? (Ghaye et al. 2008, 364). Appreciative action research is characterised by creating empowerment. It is ethical and builds on participation. Its success is connected to the ability to ask appreciative questions. An action researcher working within this approach must acquire appreciative intelligence. This is a type of intelligence that may be part of Howard Gardner s multiple intelligences. Gardner (2011) found that intelligence is not only a single characteristic, but it consists of several abilities and aptitudes. Ghaye et al. (2008) dene appreciative intelligence as the ability to rephrase, appreciate what is positive and see how the future can be developed from the present. Rephrasing may apply to ones own research questions, plans and roles. Appreciating what is positive and developing the ability to see what can be built on this demand creativity. A clear distinction is made between unfocused boasting and deliberate constructive praise (Skrvset and Tiller 2011). In the long term, an inordinate amount of inaccurate praise undermines intentions. The forward-looking element is what enables the appreciation to function. Focusing on the future requires

Educational Action Research

511

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

creativity, where one is able to envision possible solutions and the gains and benets of these. Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung states that creativity is the most important and also the most challenging aspect of constructive activities (Galtung 2003). The consequence is that the negative critical voices often are allowed to dominate in research environments. This is neither benecial nor appropriate in the type of research we wish to undertake. Appreciative action research means that researchers, as well as practitioners, deliberately and in all things great and small, attach importance to making the other party good (Skrvset and Tiller 2011). Researchers who do not comply with this, deliberately or not, risk being excluded from the eld. There is an ethical aspect in this. As researchers, we cooperate with the practitioners for a limited period of time. Thereafter we retire from the scene and the practitioners continue their activities. If the cooperation between the practitioners and researchers drains the practitioners of emotional energy (Starrin 2007), then this cooperation can be said to be ethically doubtful. Stories from practice We will now present the narratives that will be analysed and illuminated according to the theoretical framework presented above. As previously mentioned, we use the rst-person singular narrative voice because the concrete examples are taken from our logbooks, while elsewhere the plural we is used. May Britt narrates:
A meeting with teachers during the start-up phase There was a meeting in the teacher team today. All the twelve teachers in this lower secondary school were to assemble for two hours after teaching. It was an autumn day in October and the weather was quite warm. I checked the temperature the same morning before I looked into my clothes closet. With black trousers and a green and black sweater I should t in well with the dress code at the school, not too little, not too much. I was very nervous about how the meeting would turn out this time. Were the teachers motivated to start up the project? Did they feel it was their project? We had made a research question for the work together during the spring, and this was based on the fact that they wanted to direct their focus on various work methods and learning strategies. But they were having difculty nding the time for this. Lack of time was the same problem that had been repeated again and again during earlier meetings. How would it be today? I felt that I balanced between supporting them, trying to understand their arguments and, at the same time, wanting to progress and start discussions on how to improve the teaching practice together with the students. I was apprehensive. Not having control over the situation, but rather being at the mercy of the teachers motivation; this I felt was a challenge. The leader of the teacher team chaired the meeting. We all sat around an oval table so everyone was facing each other. The team leader sat at the head of the table and was to lead the dialogue. She started by saying that they wanted the rst minutes of the meeting to themselves without me being present. When after a little while they asked me to return from the corridor they told me that they had concluded that they wanted to take control of the project themselves. They thought that I was in too central a position; they wanted it to become their project. It seemed as though they were hesitant to tell me this, but I knew that I had pushed them to get started with the planning of concrete actions in practice.

512

M.B. Postholm and S. Skrvset

As I understood it, the teachers felt that they had removed me as the leader of the work, and that they believed that this was the position I wanted. Had they discussed my role when I wasnt there? What had they talked about? I was excited about this. Did I manage to meet the teachers expectations as a resource person coming from the outside and into their practice? Despite this anxiety I was really happy, and I should be. The teachers wanted to manage their own project, rightfully. It was their development project and it was their practice that was in focus. Now development of teaching for the students learning could start, I thought.

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

In the narrative above we can see that I considered carefully what to wear before I left for school that day. I did not want to stand out from the teachers but rather dress as much like them as I could. The intention was to give them positive conrmation of who they were through the style I dressed in. I was also interested in getting the teachers to identify with the development activities so they would invest efforts in the development processes. However, to use sports vernacular, I found it challenging to play on the same team as the teachers. I would need to be humble and patient and listen carefully to their thoughts and wishes. This also meant being open and listening when it came to their input in conversations, while I would also need to be the instigator and put some pressure on them. It would be like balancing on a tightrope between the supporter and instigator functions. I would have to avoid making too big mistakes in the launch phase, before the development circles started to move on their own. Before the relationships in the research partnership had been established, I was concerned as to whether the teachers would nd me to be a resource person they really needed. May Britts second narrative:
Teachers and researcher in a reection meeting It is the end of March. Today, the English teacher in year 9 has used a teaching programme for a group of students. The two English teachers in year 8 and year 10 and I had observed the class. Beforehand, we were given a plan with information on the theme and the goal for the class, questions the teacher would ask as practice that would promote student learning and what the teacher specically wished to receive feedback on. This was the rst semester where the teachers observed and then reected together on their observations. The activity had been initiated according to the teachers own wishes. Based on their wish to work in subject teams, I had prepared a formalised plan where the point in time for observation and reection had been noted. Thus all the lower secondary school teachers knew when they would teach, observe and reect together. The plan included all the teachers of mathematics, English and Norwegian, and each teacher would teach once and observe twice in each semester. I had initially assumed that I would attempt to connect theories to the teachers experience exchanges to bind together theory and practice. I had planned the reection conversations with this goal in mind. The plan was that the teacher who had taught the observed class would start by relating his own experiences and thoughts about them. After this introductory reection, all the teachers would give their input in turn. I would then offer my reections at the end so I had ample time to prepare my theory input. However, this time, exactly as in the previous reection conversations we had had, I felt it was out of place to introduce theory. I felt it would be like breaking out of the language genre that had been established in the conversation. Thus, when my turn

Educational Action Research

513

came, I also offered supportive positive comments just like the other teachers. Things did not go as I had thought. I felt that I had to enter into the dialogue in a natural manner on the premises of the dialogue and the teachers. I realised that the reection conversations would have to have other content in the initial phase than I had rst assumed. However, there had to be time for theory, the question was just to wait for the right moment.

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

The narrative shows that I entered the development activities with the understanding that change and development are things that must come from below and within. Themes and issues that come from without or above rarely take root, thus work that is forced on the participants may represent a waste of time and resources. I had the idea that if teachers are allowed to work with elds they see as necessary and benecial, they will experience this as meaningful work they will be interested in. It was with this idea in mind that I had prepared a formal plan based on the wishes of the teachers. My aim with the reection conversations was to link the theory to the practice activities that were being discussed, and prior to the observation I had been thinking about which theories might be relevant. However, it turned out that I needed to change my idea of when theory was to be brought into the conversations. I felt that the theory would be completely outside what the teachers were talking about; it would be another language genre. The teachers initially needed to share tips and experiences with each other and give each other positive feedback. At a later stage they started giving each other constructive advice and tips, and they also challenged each other with questions. The right time to connect theory to practice experiences would turn out to be after they had become acquainted with their own practice and that of the others. Siw narrates:
The quiet girls Today something interesting occurred during the post-teaching conversation. I wasnt actually looking forward to this conversation because I felt I had done a poor job during my observation. The idea was that I would observe a total of six students, two from each of the three groups (classes), for six sessions each of approximately ve minutes. The six students were two (negatively) active girls, two (negatively) active boys and two quiet girls, and the teachers wanted to illuminate how the teaching worked for these six. The teachers had discreetly pointed out the six students to me the rst time I observed the whole group, and for the four active ones this was unproblematic. I made notes about them during all the observation sessions. However, everything was different with the two quiet girls. I lost sight of them after day one. The next time I entered the class I couldnt see them. They might have changed their hairstyle (with or without a ponytail), and of course their clothes. Regardless, I could not nd them. I saw the active girls and boys, and was able to make many useful observations about them. But where were the quiet girls? I wondered how to present this in the post-teaching conversation, and whether I should only present my observations of those who were active and simply say nothing about my failure to observe the quiet students because this was simply embarrassing. Was I so slow? How could I expect the principal to make such observations when I couldnt do so myself?

514

M.B. Postholm and S. Skrvset

My inner voice advised honesty. I told it like it was, admitting that it was embarrassing, and that I had done a poor job as an observer. However, instead of being exasperated or dissatised with the job I had done, the teacher who had booked the observation said: Now this is interesting! Because thats exactly what happens to me all the time too, theyre simply lost to me for all too many hours! So when you tell me that they get lost for you too, then I think that now I must really set up a system so I can see them! So nice it happened to you too! Its a good thing I was honest, otherwise this would not have come to light, I wrote in the log later.

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

I have chosen this narrative because I remember it so well. Later, I have reected many times on how in a moment of weakness I might have chosen to overlook or forget my failed observations. What would have happened then? The teacher might not have noticed it, but then we would not have seen the situation together that in retrospect proved to be so important, which was the fact that there were girls in this class who were not seen. Why did I even consider forgetting this? Probably because we feel we are always supposed to be so clever, particularly those of us who come from the university. It is obviously our role to see what the teachers do not see; we are supposed to master situations. What does it actually mean to master a situation? For me this was an example of how courage and honesty are key aspects of being an up-close action researcher, and that this must apply just as much to our own role as to what we observe from others. This courage and the honesty must be linked to social competence to function in a constructive and not a deconstructive way. Siw moves on to another narrative:
The year 5 team I was excited about this day. The year 5 team I was to observe consisted of three teachers, and two of them had just recently nished their teacher training. In the conversation prior to starting up they had stated that they wanted feedback each day, and they appeared to be uncertain, almost nervous. I thought they might have had some bad experiences previously and therefore I was focused on making myself and the situation harmless. When I dressed in the morning I envisioned these two young teachers in the staff room. Nice young ladies, but no fashion dolls. My choice of clothing reected this: neutral, not too youthful, not frumpy; woollen sweater, jeans and Puma jogging shoes. No jacket or high heels, as that would create distance, even if the principal would normally dress that way. But they were accustomed to her. The rst thing I did when I entered the staff room was to look for these two teachers. They were sitting together at a table, the third and more experienced teacher was on sick leave, long-term sick leave as it would turn out. Thus it would only be us three. Are you nervous? I asked pleasantly. I had been pondering how to approach this, whether I should disregard their nervousness or point it out and try to turn it around. I chose the latter approach. They nodded. Me too! I said, and Im pretty worried about whether the students will be too focused on my being in the room. I pointed this out because it was true, and because I thought that as relatively edgling teachers, they had fresh experience of being assessed in their teaching practice, and I wanted to change the focus. It worked. The tension in their body-language visibly disappeared, they started to talk about their students and how they thought I would be received, and thus the observation itself was placed in the background for the time being.

Educational Action Research

515

On this rst morning I spent three ve-minute sessions with them. In the lunch break I sat with them. I had found that this was smart: I always sat with the team I was observing at any particular point in time. This day something exciting happened during the break. Just after we sat down, the mobile telephone of one of the teachers rang. She picked up the phone, jumped up and turned away from us and spoke. When she turned back she told us that she and her husband were bidding on a at, their rst. During the lunch, several phone conversations followed. The tension was palpable, and culminated with a call just before the lunch break was over. Weve bought a at! she cried out joyously and jumped with joy. She literally ran around the staff room, dispensing hugs to all and sundry, including me. I felt privileged to be able to take part in this important moment in her life and share in this unreserved joy. What have I done to deserve such a wonderful job? I wrote in my log that afternoon. After lunch we continued; they went to their classes, and I sat in with them for two more sessions. I heard nothing more about how they wanted feedback on the same day. That was a stage we had left behind us.

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

I have chosen this narrative because at rst I thought how lucky I was to experience such a day as an action researcher. Looking back, I have recognised that it is also about how I had placed myself in a situation through several deliberate choices. I acted with deliberation in relation to the hesitant and nervous teachers, and had considered carefully how to approach them. It was all about me making myself and the situation harmless by developing as symmetrical relations (Bateson 1972) as possible. I also deliberately spent much time with them so that we could form a small practice community, at least for a brief period of time, a practice community with a common learning history. One of the teachers acquiring a at became a small element in our shared history. How the narratives can be understood May Britt thought about how she should dress as a way of giving the teachers positive conrmation of their identity (Bateson 1972), and felt that they should identify with the development activities if they were to invest their efforts in the development processes. To contribute within the practice she felt that she needed to have social, communicative, pedagogical and academic competence (Postholm and Madsen 2006). She sensed the tension before she experienced that she had gained legitimacy among the teachers. Her log thus became an indispensable aid in the process as she could have a dialogue with herself (Vygotsky 2000) and thus develop her thoughts and understanding, and not least become aware of the senses connected to what occurred in the practice eld. In the reection conversations with the teachers, it turned out that they rst needed to share tips and experiences with each other and give each other positive feedback (symmetrical relations; Bateson 1972) before they were able in a later phase to give each other constructive advice and tips and challenge each other with questions (complementary relations; Bateson 1972). After they had familiarised themselves with their own practice and that of the others, it was time to connect theory to the experiences from the practice. Experiences from these reections show that language is an important communicative binding link (Vygotsky 2000), but everyone must become aware of the actual common development level they are on (Vygotsky 1978) before they can start to move into their collective zone of proximal development by means of

516

M.B. Postholm and S. Skrvset

language (Lave and Wenger 1991; Vygotsky 1978). Then a reection conversation where theory and practice are merged naturally may contribute to developing understanding and acts in practice. But such a development requires that the action researcher listens to the conversation and is open to changing her own assumptions. Notes in May Britts log reect her frustration that things initially did not go as she had expected. Looking back, we realise that patience is golden when it comes to when theory should be introduced into conversations on experiences from practice. All four narratives show how we as researchers were aware of developing symmetrical relations. We approached this through the way we dressed and the way we phrased what we wanted to say in the introduction phase and the discussions, such as whom we would sit with in the staffroom. The wish to be more academically challenging was present, but was restrained due to precisely this awareness. The academically challenging questions have to wait until what we call complementary relations have been developed. Only then is the necessary trust in place and the teachers can deal with such issues without feeling that their competence is being questioned, which is often taken as a betrayal and together with talking behind their backs and dishonouring their profession is felt to be one of the actions that trigger the strongest negative emotions in teachers (Hargreaves 2002). The researchers emotions also emerge in all four narratives. May Britt felt some restlessness nagging her. Was she good enough? Would she satisfy the expectations? Things did not turn out as she had expected as she felt initial disappointment. Siws experience with the quiet girls initially shamed her (Starrin 2007), but this turned into relief when the teacher conrmed that her failure to observe them was actually very useful. In all four narratives it emerges that the log functioned as a reexivity process that highlighted such things as honesty, which is an important aspect in several of the narratives, and, as we describe it, this primarily refers to the researcher s honesty with herself. How this honesty is to be communicated, and what should be communicated to the participants in the partnership, is dealt with on the basis of the researcher s appreciative intelligence. The rst component in appreciative action research is rephrasing. Most action researchers will recognise this. This also emerges in May Britts second narrative. She was forced to rephrase and change what she felt was part of her own role in the work. She was unable to draw on theory and concepts at the point in time in the process that she initially had planned. Siws narrative about the quiet girls demonstrates how something that initially appeared to be rather innocuous turned out to be what the teacher was most concerned and worried about, after the observations had been presented and discussed again. All of the narratives show how unforeseen things arose and how the researchers were forced to analyse and act there and then. These situations demanded that all of the researchers had sufcient creativity to envision different solutions and choose among these in an appreciative manner. Appreciation is the second component. Neither of us had discussed this construct before we launched our research projects. When we summarise our experiences in this article, however, it is the emphasis on what is positive that emerges most clearly. This was the basis for Siws work with Skolevandring (school walks; Skrvset 2008), the book Verdsettende ledelse (Appreciative leadership; Skrvset and Tiller 2011) and for May Britts role as action researcher (Postholm 2008a, 2008b). The researchers must contribute to creating a good atmosphere dominated by trust. Trust leads to good emotions, which in turn may lead to involvement in development activities. The constructive aspect of seeing how the future can be

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

Educational Action Research

517

developed from the present is, in our opinion, the crucial aspect of all action research. All practitioners are, needless to say, interested in knowing that what occurs is useful. This is one of the strongest motivational forces behind development (Tiller 2008; Postholm 2008a). Challenges and possibilities connected to a researcher who is close to the practice So how does the researcher have to adapt to the developing processes and continuously act in relation to the participants during the work? Our studies show that the action researcher must have a high degree of self-respect, condence in herself and the will to continue and not yield in the face of some opposition. The researcher must be honest, not least to herself, and emotionally receptive to impressions and expressions, thus functioning constructively in the exploratory partnership. The researcher must allow the work to be process driven and must be prepared for unexpected events. This means that the researcher will not have complete control over the process and what happens, but rather must accept surprises and listen with patience, and be open, creative and responsive. The researcher gains authority, inuence and trust through her competence. Close research partnerships like the ones we were in are vulnerable and require a high level of social competence, particularly when the researcher invites herself into a practice that has been in effect long before she entered the picture, and which will continue long after she has gone her way. Based on our experience, we would claim that the closer researching partnerships are, the more necessary it is that the researchers have appreciative intelligence. Often, as guests we will enter into a practice we are not familiar with. Good communicative skills and an attitude that signals symmetry will be decisive for the partnership. In this and our future work we would say that we as researchers and guests should function as role-models for how we deal with each other in researching partnerships. If we are honest, we often receive honesty in return. If we signal that we envision positive development ahead, there is every probability that this is precisely what will happen. References
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Connelly, M., and D. J. Clandinin, eds. 1999. Shaping a Professional Identity. Stories of Educational Practice. London: Teachers College Press. Downey, C., E. S. Betty, F. W. English, L. E. Frase, and W. K. Poston Jr. 2004. The Three Minute Classroom Walk-through. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Galtung, J. 2003. Bde Og. En innfring I Koniktarbeid [Both and. An Introduction into Conict Work]. Oslo: Kagge forlag. Gardner, H. 2011. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Ghaye, T., A. Melander-Wikman, M. Kisare, P. Chambers, U. Bergmark, C. Kostenius, and S. Lillyman. 2008. Participatory and Appreciative Action and Reection (PAAR) Democratizing Reective Practices. Reective Practice 9 (4): 361397. Gudmundsdottir, S. 1997. Introduction to the Theme Issue of Narrative Perspectives on Research on Teaching and Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education 13 (1): 13. Gudmundsdottir, S. 2001. Narrative Research in School Practice. In Handbook for Research on Teaching, 4th ed., edited by V. Richardson, 226240. New York: Macmillan.

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013

518

M.B. Postholm and S. Skrvset

Hargreaves, A. 2002. Teaching and Betrayal. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 8 (3/4): 393407. Heshusius, L. 1994. Freeing Ourselves from Objectivity: Managing Subjectivity or Turning toward a Participatory Mode of Consciousness? Educational Researcher 23 (3): 1522. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Postholm, M. B. 2010. Kvalitativ Metode. En innfring Med Fokus p Fenomenologi, Etnogra Og Kasusstudier [Qualitative Method. An Introduction Focusing on Phenomenology, Ethnography and Case Studies]. Rev. ed. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Postholm, M. B. 2008a. The Start-up Phase in a Research and Development Work Project: A Foundation for Development. Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (3): 575584. Postholm, M. B. 2008b. Teachers Developing Practice: Reection as Key Activity. Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (7): 17171728. Postholm, M. B., and J. Madsen. 2006. The Researcher s Role: An Ethical Dimension. Outlines 7 (1): 4960. Skrvset, S. 2008. Skolevandring Et Nytt verkty for Ledelse Og lring [School Walks a New Tool for Management and Learning]. Eureka Forskningsserie No. 2-2008. Troms: Eureka forlag. Skrvset, S., and T. Tiller. 2011. Verdsettende Ledelse Nkkelen Til En lrende Arbeidsplass [Appreciative Leadership the Key to a Learning Workplace]. Kristiansand: Hyskoleforlaget. Starrin, B. 2007. Empowerment Som Livsinnstilling Kan Vi lre Noe Av Pippi Langstrmpe? [Empowerment as Life Attitude Can We Learn from Pippi Longstockings?]. In Empowerment I Teori Og Praksis [Empowerment in Theory and Practice], edited by O. P. Askheim and B. Starrin, 5971. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk forlag. Steen-Olsen, T., and A. G. Eikseth. 2009. Lringssamspill I Et lringsfellesskap Metodiske tilnrminger I Aksjonsforskning [Learning Interaction in a Learning Community. Methodical Approaches in Action Research]. In Utvikle En lrende Skole: Aksjonsforskning Og aksjonslring I Praksis [To Develop a Learning School: Action Research and Action Learning in Practice], edited by T. Steen-Olsen and M. B. Postholm, 1735. Kristiansand: Hyskoleforlaget. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tiller, T. 2006. Aksjonslring Forskende Partnerskap I Skolen: Motoren I Det Nye lringslftet [Action Learning Research Partnerships in School: The Engine in the New Knowledge Promotion Reform]. 2nd ed. Kristiansand: Hyskoleforlaget. Tiller, T. 2008. Ti Tanker Om Skolen Brev Til Storm [Ten Thoughts about School Letters to Storm]. Kristiansand: Hyskoleforlaget. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. 2000. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wildy, H., and S. Clarke. 2004. Leadership in Small Rural Primary Schools: The Case of the Novice Teaching Principal. Paper presented at the European Conference for Educational Research, Crete, Greece, September.

Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 05:49 31 December 2013