Periodicity of action research

A topic in research methodology

Action research, AR, can be characterised by its purpose, priorities and periodicity.

“AR involves cycles of trying out ideas, and testing them out in practice.” (Taber, 2013: 108)

“The iterative nature of the action inquiry process is perhaps its single most distinguishing characteristic. … Action research is an ongoing, repetitive process in which what is achieved in each cycle provides the starting point for further improvement in the next.”

Tripp, 2005: 452

Cycles of research

In terms of the temporal sequence of the research: AR usually has a cyclical pattern: the action research cycle. Interventions are made, and evaluated, and further modifications made, and evaluated, until a satisfactory outcome is reached.

The important distinction between the cycles of action research and the succession of studies in a research programme is that each cycle of the AR is not considered a separate study that needs to be effectively concluded and formally documented.

It is not always obvious from published studies that claim to have used AR that there have been discreet cycles of research activity – even when authors emphasis the importance of this aspect of the approach:

“Participatory action research takes place in cycles and it is important to report on each cycle and regard each cycle as an element that is using action as a way of studying change”

Bish et al, 2013: 287

Challenges of writing-up research cycles

Perhaps this problem arises from the conventions of writing academic research as discrete studies with a linear flow form conceptualisation to research question to design to discussion of data analysis to results and their implication. However, it is possible to report an AR study in a way that authentically reflects the progression of cycles of activity. One example is the M.Ed. dissertation work of Judith Philip in a project motivated by her concern as a biology teacher about an aspect of her students’ learning. Judith’s work is summarised in the Journal of Biological Education, where she wrote:

“The introduction, development and fading of this scaffold are reported here as three cycles of an action research project. The results of the first two cycles were used to modify and re-plan the following cycle. As such, different research questions were addressed in each cycle as the project progressed…This paper reports three practical lessons each of which was the centre of one action research cycle. A new scaffold for presenting information to learners during practicals was introduced, evaluated and faded. The results of the first two cycles were used to modify and re-plan the following cycles”

Philip & Taber, 2016: 210-212

Sources cited:

• Bish, M., Kenny, A., & Nay, R. (2013). Using participatory action research to foster nurse leadership in Australian rural hospitals. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 286-291.
• Philip, J. M. D., & Taber, K. S. (2016). Separating ‘Inquiry Questions’ and ‘Techniques’ to Help Learners Move between the How and the Why of Biology Practical Work. Journal of Biological Education, 50(2), 207–226. doi:10.1080/00219266.2015.1058840
• Taber, K. S. (2013). Classroom-based Research and Evidence-based Practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
• Tripp, D. (2005). Action research: a methodological introduction. Educação e Pesquisa, 31(3), 443-466.