Approaches to Research

When I first began thinking about this project early in the summer, I misconceived what I would be undertaking and believed it to be like a research task (lots of reading), and then applying its conclusions to my practice; much like the Intervention in the previous unit. Once this unit’s workshops got underway, and I began going through mandatory and suggested readings, I started to realise that the activity was not as straight-forward as I had thought. I found myself being introduced to many terms – some I was familiar with but didn’t have any deep knowledge of, and others completely novel – and I’ve come to realise that I need to take a step back and establish a better understanding of this field. This is not intended to be a particularly evaluative post, but more a descriptive summary of salient aspects.

What is Action Research?

The logical place to begin is with the Unit Brief. This document states that the purpose of the project is to conduct “academic research to enhance the student experience”, and that we are to “undertake a small-scale … action research project, which addresses an [identified] issue” (p. 1). It goes on to describe action research as “both a philosophy and a methodological approach. It is a form of simultaneous action and enquiry, which enables you to experiment with creative and innovative methods” which “emphasises reflection and planning for future iterations” (p. 2). And the Brief encourages us to “experiment with different methods – ideally that are new to you” (p. 3). With this in mind, my intention is to briefly examine some such methods available to the researcher.

Bell and Waters (2018, p. 27) define action research as an approach appropriate when there is a problem in need of a solution, and importantly it is undertaken by practitioners who have themselves identified a need. Furthermore they do refer to it as being an ‘approach’, and not a ‘method’ or technique, which suggests that the action researcher is free to implement any research methods they deem to be suitable.

Our first set reading was McNiff (2002), with her advice for ‘new’ action researchers – that definitely describes me! She states that self-reflection is an essential component to Action Research, and where it differs from traditional/empirical research is whilst they conduct research on ‘other people’, “in action research, researchers do research on themselves”. So this is a highly introspective exercise, but this has to be balanced with the Brief focusing on enhancing the student experience. Later, McNiff highlights the idea of the actions of the research not been the only result, but also the learning that the researcher has undergone, and both should feature when the project results are shared with others.

Quantitative verses Qualitative

Now these are familiar terms, but it would be wise to check their meanings. Bell and Waters (2018) state that “quantitative researchers collect facts and study the relationship of one set of facts to another” and that they “use structured and predetermined research questions, conceptual frameworks
and designs” (p. 24), with the strength of this being the possibility of producing conclusions that “can be generalised to whole populations” (p. 25). By contrast, qualitative researchers “are more concerned to understand individuals’ perceptions of the world” and their position is to “doubt whether social facts exist and question whether a scientific approach can be used when dealing with human beings.” By its nature, “qualitative research generally uses non-numerical data and usually has broader research questions at the outset that home in on a narrower range of issues as the research develops” (p. 24). Within the context of the present project, the latter would be the appropriate choice, as I am exploring a very ‘human’ concern, and that I would only attempt to collect data from a handful of students, thus leading to conclusions that may not be applicable to a much wider population.

Phenomenology

Based on, and deriving its name from, a philosophical movement, Phenomenology is a qualitative approach which, according to Hassan (2024), “focuses on exploring and understanding human experiences as they are perceived by individuals”. Gill (2020), citing Moran, adds that the term “refers to the study of phenomena, where a phenomenon is anything that appears to someone in their conscious experience” (p. 73). Because this is exploring subjective experiences, where each individual will have differing perceptions of the same event or situation, this immediately seems ideally suited to exploring an emotion such as anxiety.

Whilst I will not give space here to any analysis, there are generally two approaches. Edmund Husserl, who founded the philosophical study of phenomenology, originated ‘descriptive’ phenomenology in which ‘bracketing’ is a crucial element. This is where the researcher “suspends their assumptions and presuppositions about a phenomenon” (Gill 2020, p. 75) in order not to interfere with the experiences of the research participants. Martin Heidegger developed ‘interpretative’ or ‘hermeneutic’ phenomenology, which is largely the same but includes the role of interpreting the results in light of a participant’s context, whether cultural, historical, or whatever (Gill 2020, p. 77).

Being a qualitative approach, Hassan (2024) sets out in-depth interviews, focus groups and observations as common means of data collection, and that thematic analysis will often be applied to the data in order to identify themes and patterns.

Narrative Enquiry

Continuing the theme of human experience, narrative enquiry values narratives, or ‘stories’, as a valid source of data. Bell and Waters (2028, p. 40) interviewed Dr Janette Gray, who explained that this approach “involves the collection and development of stories” often within an interview setting. What this suggests to me is that this is simply a form of interview between researcher and participant(s), but in a manner that allows the subject freedom to speak at length and expand as they wish. An interview can be designed to consist of set questions to elicit short answers, but can also be semi-structured where the researcher has a clear idea of what information they seek, but pre-prepared questions are conversation starters, and this would appear to be the format that Dr Gray is proposing. However, she goes on to add that “the research method can be described as narrative when data
collection, interpretation and writing are considered a ‘meaning-making’ process with similar characteristics to stories”, and that “all forms of narrative inquiry involve an element of analysis and development of theme, dependent on the researcher’s perspective”, so it would be wrong to only see this approach as the means of data collection alone.

Embodied Enquiry

According to Leigh and Brown (2021a), Embodied Enquiry is an approach that centres on “the lived, embodied experiences of the researcher and the researched”, where ’embodied’ means “a process and a state of being where an individual is consciously self-aware of their body, their mind, their thoughts, feelings, sensations and proprioceptive responses”. So once again we have a tool that focuses on the human experience. In their opening definition it is interesting to note that it includes the experience of both researcher and participant, but in their expansion they state that the inquiry could be of “either the person or people doing the research, or those who are being researched”.

In their longer treatise (Leigh and Brown 2021b) three principles are outlined: firstly the ‘What?’ a non-judgemental exploration and awareness of the self; secondly the ‘Why?’ in which a deeper or more authentic truth is discoverable through personal stories and data; and the third is the ‘How?’, which seeks to incorporate this into research (p. 2). Of particular immediate interest is that the authors believe that research relating to “participants’ lived experiences are a prime example for Embodied Inquiry” (2021b, p. 22), including matters related to health (p. 23). Because Leigh and Brown see the role of the researcher’s body as experiencing and reacting to stimuli, including emotional, there are parallels with ethnographical research (pp. 23-4), and when the authors come to address the focus on “interpretations of experiences”, connections are made with the phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger (p. 26-7).

Summing up

Of course this is just a representative sample of the manifold research approaches that exist, and even this is more than what is necessary for this ‘small-scale’ project. However it is important to hold an overview of several approaches so as to best inform the planning of a project. Even though I am unlikely to use much of this knowledge at present, this will hopefully be of help in future research projects that I am likely to pursue.

What has not been included here is ethnography, and as this is itself a small family of approaches, I will examine these in a separate post.