runningheadactionresearch.docVIP

Running head: ACTION RESEARCH Action Research: Methodology, Method, and Professional Development Mary Jane McIlwain George Mason University Action Research: Methodology, Method, and Professional Development Methodology versus Method There are those that may think of action research as a sapling, a young methodology in need of a stake to hold it in place. It may be that these thoughts are generated due to viewing action research (AR) as a method—a tactic that could be used to increase teacher efficacy or a new platform for staff development. However, the history of this way of knowing tells us that AR is a fully developed methodology in the process of becoming the mighty oak, with roots that run deep into the field of education research providing stability and multiple sources of nourishment. Kurt Lewin began forming the action research methodology in the 1940s as an effort to solve social problems (Smith, 2001). His work was set in non-educational environments, but dealt with group dynamics, experiential learning, and change processes. A premise supporting this sort of applied research is that those closest to the problem would be able to create and or acquire relative knowledge and put it to action to bring about the necessary change (Holly, Arhar, Kasten, 2005; Kember, 2000; Smith, 2001). He outlined a spiraling, but consistent, process that involved identifying an idea, reconnaissance, planning, taking the first action, evaluating, amending the plan, taking the second action, etc. The neatness of Lewin’s model, and others like it, has worried some that the methodology could be considered a method rather than a broader avenue leading to the accumulation and justification of knowledge (Holly et al., 2005; Smith, 2001). This epistemological variable, as well as its association with political activism and lack of empirical data, is thought to be why it struggled to take hold in the world of education that dominat