CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.3.1 Action research (AR)
59
defining characteristic of pragmatism. This allows the research to switch between different perspectives in order to answer the research question. Pragmatism does not encourage a single system of thinking or truth. It is therefore specifically applicable in a mixed-methods approach because the focus is solution-generative. According to Creswell (2014), for the mixed methods researcher, pragmatism allows the use of multiple methods, different worldviews and different beliefs, as well as various forms of data collection and analysis.
The pragmatists believe in understanding reality through action. Thus the relationship between the process of scientific theoretical perspectives and practical application is dialectical and cooperative (Kyrö, 2004). The study aimed at conceptualising the process of participation of nurse leaders in health policy development in order to advance the theoretical discussion in this field. Conceptualisation will lead to better practical application.
For many pragmatists, knowledge claims arise out of activities, circumstances, and consequences rather than preconceived conditions. Pragmatism is concerned with applications, in other words what works or what the solution for a problem is. Pragmatism merges reality with experience, which is the satisfaction of subjective interests of the informed subjects. Pragmatism is consistent with action research that is more focussed on the application of existing scientific knowledge versus creation of new scientific knowledge.
Hence it could be argued that pragmatism is a more grounded approach to research (McNiff, 2013).
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
60
interpretation. The two databases were compared to integrate the results to develop a more complete understanding of the research problem (Creswell, 2014). The founder of
‘‘Action Research’’ is Kurt Lewin, a German-born social psychologist and educator. For Lewin, the major goals of action research were to create a change in practice and to develop or refine existing theory. He signified AR as an intervention that dealt with the improvement of intergroup relations (Bradbury, 2015). According to Bradbury and Reason (2006), action research can be defined as both a methodology and an ideology. As a methodology, it stipulates how data should be collected and interpreted. As an ideology, it is fixed in the democratic thinking of promoting individual welfare in a humanistic way.
Knowledge created through scholastic research and knowledge created while involved in practice is the basis for this philosophy (Bargal, 2008).
McNiff and Whitehead (2011), further stated that the action research approach to capacity building assumes that the professional is not a novice who needs to be dependent on trainers, rather she needs the support of a critical friend who is also learning in the process of facilitating the professional’s development. The ability of the nurse leaders to learn from the study’s experience is essential for continuous professional development. Therefore, the objective of the study, which was to identify and collaboratively implement strategies to increase participation of nurse leaders in health policy development, using the action research approach is relevant for professional development. Action researchers are primarily concerned with research that will have implications for public policy, whether tackling particular practical problems or changing the broader social structure (Kwok and Ku, 2008). Lewin shifted the role of the researcher from being a distant observer to involvement in concrete problem solving (Bradbury, 2015).
The core features of action research are: Partnership and participation – engagement of the researcher with stakeholders; Reflexivity – about how change efforts are unfolding;
Technical, practical and emancipatory – empowering employees as members of knowledge creation efforts; Emphasis on creating transformative change by taking purposeful action (Huang, 2010). Action research is therefore especially relevant in nursing because it bridges the gap between theory, research and practice. The academic integrity of AR depends both on the ability to solve relevant problems and at the same time thoroughly examine experiences from the field engagement, in order to impart research- based findings. This dual perspective (action and reflection) distinguishes AR from most conventional social science practices (Levin, 2012).
61
3.3.1.1 Action research outcomes
Action research is unlike other methods of research as there is less concern for the universality of findings, and more significance is placed on the relevance of the findings to the researcher and local collaborators. According to Riel and Lepori (2011), action research has three outcomes, on the personal, organisational and scholarly levels. At the personal level, it is an organised set of methods for interpreting and evaluating one’s actions with the goal of improving practice. The researcher focuses inward, reflecting on changes in skills, knowledge and identity. At the organisational level, action research is about identifying the system of interactions that define a social context. The researcher develops an understanding of the factors that control change and result in group or organisational change.
According to Bradbury (2015), Lewin proposed action research as a method of understanding social systems or organisational learning. Lewin maintained that understanding is best tested by trying to effect change. At the scholarly level, the action researcher produces confirmed or proven findings. It is his or her responsibility to communicate the findings arrived at with participants in the study setting to the larger community. The researchers appreciate that many people gain expertise in their workplace, but that the process of expanding knowledge through ongoing discussion about the nature of their findings is the most valued aspect. Engaging in this discourse, through publishing or presenting at conferences, is part of the process of action research (Riel and Lepori, 2011).
3.3.1.2 Rationale for action research in this study
Action research was applicable to the study since experience and the literature review enabled the researcher to have a reasonable idea of the problems to be investigated (French, 2009). It allowed involvement of the researcher in her own study and collective, in that it involved other people as part of a shared enquiry. It is research with rather than research on. The participants were engaged from the initial phase to the implementation stage, while trying out an intervention that emanated mainly from their recommendations during data collection. One of the objectives of the study was to collaboratively identify and implement strategies that would enhance the participation of nurse leaders in health policy development.
62
Action research involves a self-reflective spiral of planning, acting, observing, reflecting and re-planning (McNiff, 2013). This process is relevant, as change in practice (participation of nurse leaders in policy development) is justified. The study incorporated both qualitative and quantitative methods. The typical politician welcomes action research reports that are made directly by community representatives because they are more useful and actionable than are rigorous numbers (Huang, 2010). The strategy implemented (a policy brief) was developed by the community of nurse leaders for presentation to the policy-makers.
3.3.1.3 Approaches to action research
There is no consensus on the approach to action research, as there is no absolutely right or exclusive approach to it (McNiff and Whitehead, 2011). However, action research allows the researcher to consider and work on what is applicable in her particular circumstances.
According to McNiff (2013), Lewin identified four types of action research:
Diagnostic action research which was intended to yield a needed plan of action or intervention in an already existing situation. The researcher diagnoses the problem, and recommends remedial measures.
Participant action research in which the affected community must be involved in the research process from the beginning. They realise the need for the proposed improvement and support the programme.
Empirical action research was primarily a matter of keeping records and adding experiences in day-to-day work, ideally with a succession of similar groups.
Experimental action research called for a controlled study of the relative effectiveness of various techniques in nearly identical social situations to test hypotheses and generate scientific knowledge (Adelman, 2006). O’Brien (2001) identified other types, which are:
Traditional action research that is applied in areas of organisational development. It is more conservative and resistant to change in power structures. The primary focus of traditional action research is to acquire more knowledge about an area of interest. The researcher only engages other participants at the implementation stage, while trying out an intervention that was pre-determined without the involvement of the participants.
Educational action research is an approach where educational experts work inside or outside an educational setting to attend to problems relating to curriculum development, professional development and applied learning in a social context, with the active participation of people who are affected by the phenomenon of interest (McNiff, 2013).
63
The current study employed the participant action research approach. The participants were involved from the initial to the implementation stages of the study. A research team validated data collection tools, assisted during data collection, and identified and participated in the implementation of strategies that could enhance the participation of nurse leaders in health policy development.
3.3.1.4 Action research guiding principles
What gives action research its unique quality is the following principles that guide the research.
Action research is cyclical or spiral.
Some steps of AR recur in the same pattern at various stages of the research process (McNiff, 2013). The cyclical process of planning, observation, reflection and action was followed in all phases of the study. The starting point for the study was the identification of a practical problem, which was limited participation of nurse leaders in health policy development. The purpose of the preliminary phase was to define the current situation, with the objective of visioning and planning the phases of the action research. The second phase, the capacity building policy workshop, built on the findings from the first phase.
Action research is collaborative and participative.
Working together between the researcher and other participants is of utmost importance in AR, although the degree of participation expected from the researcher and the participants differs from one project to another. It ranges from a total absence of difference between role players to obvious separation of roles. The researcher in AR is the facilitator, guider, formulator and summariser of knowledge and raiser of issues (Cohen and Crabtree, 2006). McNiff and Whitehead (2011) stressed the need to recognise, appreciate and respect the rights and values of all participating individuals and their goals and aspirations. The role of the researcher in this study was that of a facilitator, supporter and co-learner. The researcher and participants collaboratively identified and implemented strategies that could be used to enhance participation of nurse leaders in health policy development. In spite of the differences in their responsibilities and professional expertise, partners in action research should appreciate each other as colleagues (McNiff and Whitehead, 2011).
64
Action research accommodates mixed methods
AR works more frequently with language than numbers. However, some research may be a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods as was the case with this study. This study also employed mixed methods whereby qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews and through questionnaires (Greenwood and Levin, 2007).
Action research is reflective
Analysis of each cycle takes place to consider the results produced by the planned activities (McNiff, 2013). The critical reflection on the cycle of planning, action and evaluation at each phase of the research process is fundamental for moving toward the desired change for improved practice. In this study, the researcher and the participants undertook the reflection process as part of learning and professional development.
Action research solves practical problems and leads to change in practice.
AR focuses on specific problems within specific settings for improving practice.
Furthermore, if the desired change is outside the researcher’s scope, s(he) should be realistic and aim to address some smaller aspect of the work and not to give up altogether.
Participation of nurse leaders in health policy development is quite broad. However capacitating the participants with knowledge of the health policy development process that was limited was a step to initiate change in their practice (McNiff 2013).
McNiff (2011) suggested that, rather than starting with a rigid assumption, the researcher works through the various stages of the research process to see if her desire is satisfied.
From the findings, the researcher either develops a new theory or works on a previous one. This study considered a number of theories for understanding and analysing the characteristics of participants. There are basic steps that are followed in action research, which are described in many ways. McNiff (2011) identified eight steps of action research as follows: reviewing current practice; identification of aspects to be investigated; imagining way forward; trying it out; taking stock of what happened; modifying what one is doing in the light of findings; continuing to work in the new way. Different authors agree that action research is not linear (Hayes, 2012; Greenwood and Levin, 2012; McNiff, 2011). Some describe it as spiral and others as cyclical. The model in Figure 3.1 summarises the action research process that was followed in the study.
65
Figure 3.1: Action research model