I was hoping the chapter on Participatory Action Research would be longer as this is the method I have determined to be the best fit for my current design. Like critical ethnography, it aligns well with emancipatory principles and makes me feel like the research I complete may be useful in my field. I genuinely believe that I cannot make significant change to our current provincial public education system, but if I raise awareness or make even a small shift in policy, I will feel successful. The chapter offered different perspectives at times than my other readings. I was left wondering about the role of the researcher. This chapter made it seem like a researcher is entering a field study as a collaborator, but I wish to complete my research as a practitioner alongside other practitioners, but with my added expertise in research methods and literature. Is that acceptable?

The Richard Sagor (2010) video aligned better with my understanding of action research and I love the idea of all staff (not just teachers) being involved in action research throughout a school year. I used his four stages to expand upon my plan:

  1. What do I wish to accomplish? I need to better understand why the current model of public education doesn’t work for some students and educators. As a teacher in this system, I can make lists of all of the things that frustrate me, but I would like to have a broader understanding of specifically what changes would make our system more welcoming.
  2. How will I do that? I would like to meet with the people who have been a part of public education and chosen to leave. I want to know why they left, and what has worked better for them. I have learned that my own district does not conduct exit interviews to collect data on why children leave and where they go.
  3. How will I collect the data? My current plan is to provide a provocation or task to complete together to generate rich discussions and ideas.
  4. Reflection, what did I learn? This part will be done with the groups. What did we all learn, and how will we use it to make change in our various local districts?

 

One takeaway from the Gillberg (2011) article for me was the alternate headings used for disseminating the information. I really liked the process the author took in the write-up and some of the wording choices. This gave me a great example of one option for drafting an article before dissertation.

            I was so excited to read Bergmark’s (2020) article as I immediately developed some preconceived notions based on the inclusion of Nel Noddings’ work. I was a bit disappointed that the content wasn’t what I expected although overall it was a very helpful piece. The title led me to believe that the article would focus on the implications of care needed for the children in action research environments, not solely the relationships between researchers and educators. The dilemmas discussed by Bergmark are easily transferable to the topic I was expecting to read. Learners are the “experts” in the experiences of learning in school environments. Researchers and educator-researchers would be well advised to approach from a caring and collaborative place, ensuring that any children who participate in action research studies feel valued for their contributions.

Conclusion

The complexity of qualitative methods is my most profound takeaway at this point in the course. There are so many options and variations within different methods to consider in research design. I think that the biggest difference between quantitative and qualitative methods might be the role of the researcher. Quantitative methods keep the researcher separate and objective from the data, whereas qualitative methods invite the researcher to determine their role and voice in within the design. My axiological orientation and desire to share the voices behind the data means that I will invest in learning more about qualitative methods.