What are the challenges of practitioner-researchers in your field of practice?

The Second-Order Researcher

A practitioner-researcher or second-order researcher is an ‘insider’ academic who studies a phenomenon in their workplace or profession and outside the university. The first-hand researcher, or ‘outsider’, is the academic whose career lies within the university and who does not practice the profession or workplace they study (Losito, Pozzo & Somekh, 1998).

The appreciation of practitioner research in the field of education is a relatively new one, and research methodologies for professionals, such as Action Research (AR), were unheard of until Kurt Lewin coined the term in the 1940s (Baumfield, Hall & Wall, 2017). Later on, in 1996, Hargreaves (1996) suggested that the teaching profession could become a research-based profession similar to the medical one, which is established normality (Murray & Aymer, 2008). This blog post will present one issue, two possible solutions, and a question regarding research in professional practices, notably teaching, compared to the medical profession.

Issue

Murray and Aymer’s (2008) research points out a considerable difference between second-order medical research and the teaching profession. It explains that research and practice are easily combined and encouraged in the former, leading to promotion in medical practices. They note that the same is not valid for teachers whose lesson plans, activities and textbooks are not taken seriously by the Research Assessment Exercise (REF, 2021). This disparity is a shame because practitioners can often better recognise areas needing action (Costly, Elliot & Gibbs, 2010). In summary, this blog would like to raise the issue that the teaching profession is not respected academically. Therefore, teachers do not share their expertise as practitioners do in medicine.

Solutions

As far as solutions are concerned, the following two possibilities are proposed:

  • If teachers were given similar encouragement as medical doctors, both financially and regarding career development, they might be more motivated to share their expertise through publication;
  • Understanding the theories feeding educational enquiry and the craft of academic writing would help teachers to navigate their way through academia and probably contribute towards improving their practices. These skills can be achieved by working towards a professional doctorate such as the EdD. Universities such as the Open University and others in Australia, North America, and the EU offer professional doctorates to teachers and other professionals (Barnacle, 2017). Another option could include education enquiry in teacher-training courses (Burnaford, Fischer & Hobson (2001).

Nevertheless, these solutions highlight two of the many challenges professionals face if they want to share their expertise with an academic audience. Practitioner research in all fields is often undervalued and compared adversely to university research (Thomson & Gunter, 2010). Furthermore, publishing in any area is competitive, and teachers, in particular, have difficulty publishing their work without adequate training in enquiry (Davis, 2019).

Question

In conclusion, the question posed by this blog post regards your experience as a practitioner-researcher. What is the situation in your workplace? Are your colleagues interested in publishing? What are the challenges of second-order researchers in your field of practice?

By Lesley Fearn @lesleyfearn

I achieved my EdD in 2021 regarding learning and teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) using online community projects in secondary schools. This interest stems from more than thirty years of experience teaching English (as a Foreign Language) and English literature in state schools in the south of Italy. During this time, I have continually experimented with new approaches and techniques, especially with technology, to motivate students in their schooling. Other areas of interest include Fine Art and English literature that I studied as a BA and MA. As far as research is concerned, I am particularly interested in Action Research and sociocultural paradigms.

What’s in a name? The influence of pseudonyms on research activities

Photo by Hassan OUAJBIR from Pexels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/selective-focus-photo-of-red-rose-1324995/

As researchers, we are ethically commanded to assure anonymity for participants engaging in research activities (BERA, 2018). Anonymisation often results in selection of participant pseudonyms by researchers to assist in preventing identification. An alias, or code name is assumed, often chosen by the research author without consultation with participants. The origin of the meaning alias resides in Latin as ‘at another time, elsewhere’ (Wordsense, 2021) which suggests an alternative identity is assumed, particularly because it should be distinct from participants’ real names. This can be particularly challenging within the field of social science when positive, professional relationships with participants brings potential for gathering valuable, rich data, to say nothing of perpetuating power imbalances between researcher and participant. Pseudonyms can therefore be a barrier to establishing participant relationships. It seems the idea of pseudonyms warrants careful consideration, though, because a name can be more important than first conceived.

Participants’ heritage and culture are often embodied in their name. Names can be inter-generationally adopted to demonstrate family attachments and respect for predecessors. Participants may not want to lose this sense of belonging with their family, particularly when researching sensitive subjects. Emotional connections with family can support and affirm the value of participants’ contributions to the research study which could help retention.  Conversely, pseudonyms which are representative of family members who have brought disrepute on the family could risk alienating participants from the study. The negative association with these names would not necessarily be known to the researcher. Worse still are pseudonyms which are codes, such as numbers or letters. This depersonalises participants and removes their identity as well as extracting their name from fieldwork. Whilst this is arguably more influential in qualitative studies than quantitative research, the scientific study of human society and social relationships is quite possibly hampered when participant identities are altered.

Shakespeare (1597) disregarded the significance of names in Romeo and Juliet, arguing the person inside is more important than their name. But our social constructionism attaches importance to names which demonstrate who we are inside. Names are often aligned to religion, class, age, socio-economic circumstances, geographical locations and so on, and as a result influence our positionality and how we view the world. Within research, participants’ names might impact upon the research experience. In a recent study I tried to avoid these complexities by asking participants to select their own pseudonyms. Rather than avert these issues, it presented different problems. Several participants chose to use their initials, which had potential to identify them in a small, narrative study. In addressing this, one participant asked to be called by the first initial of their surname, preceded by ‘Mr’. As the only male in the study this insufficiently managed the risk of identification. The participant subsequently suggested the pseudonym Churchill, explaining this was patriotic. This names conjures various understandings, although perhaps not a general sense of awareness to social injustice. Seeking clarification, I enquired ‘Asking for a friend……. the politician or the dog?’. And the response?

‘Both’.

by Sarah Mander

Sarah Mander is a Staff Tutor in ECYS, and Associate Lecturer for E102. Sarah is currently studying for a Doctorate in Education, researching the characteristics of child-centred practice within Early Help workforces. Her research interests emanate from a career in early intervention and preventative work in children’s services. Sarah also authors student wellbeing bulletins and leads the ECYS Student Voice and Wellbeing group.

 

Ethical Challenges of Research in Secondary Schools: All is well that ends well

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

The topic of my thesis developed from thirty years of teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in secondary schools in the south of Italy. Over the years, I have seen and experimented with many teaching approaches, but one that I found to be particularly intriguing was what I have named Online Community Projects (OCPs).

My experience of working with minors meant that ethical thinking came effortlessly. For example, teachers cannot do anything outside their everyday teaching without obtaining signed permission from parents or informing the headteacher and colleagues in writing. In addition, the experience helped me to foresee complications, such as taking students out of other teachers’ lessons or missing their buses home if I asked them to stay after school. In addition, as an insider, I knew that if I offered rewards, my intentions might be misinterpreted, so care was needed for every decision.

The biggest problem was finding the right time to do interviews, and I waited for an elusive moment that only came once during the whole initial study. I learnt from my mistakes and interviewed during my lessons with the classes in question for the primary research. I put the students into groups to work on their OCP activities, and the group that finished first was the one I would interview. Another helpful solution was to use open-question questionnaires with tick-boxes that gave the participants information about the research and the opportunity to refuse or give consent for their answers to be used for publication purposes. However, analysing these decisions was complicated and messy. Therefore I drew up a table following the BERA and Stutchbury and Fox (2009).

One of the most critical issues arising from my initial study was that my data did not teach me anything that I didn’t already know, and I wanted to learn something new. After substantial reading of literature such as Hammersley (2012), Scotland (2012) and Cresswell (2003), I realised that my paradigm was not aligned with my ontological and epistemological viewpoints. Once I had understood this, everything fell into place, and I realised that I had to change my methodology. I decided to use Action Research and Burns’ (1999) iterative framework. This process led me to rethink my research framework and data analysis. The discovery of Stake’s (2006) Multiple Case Study Analysis was a significant breakthrough for me. It led me to introduce three contrasting voices and define five multiple cases connected through the use of OCPs but with different perspectives.

These changes revolutionised my research and understanding of myself and my worldviews. It also led me to make an important discovery that I had no idea about beforehand, transforming my teaching practice and research. All is well that ends well, as they say. Has anyone else been disappointed with the results of their initial study? Please let us know about your experiences and how you overcame them.

Dr. Lesley June Fearn @lesleyfearn

I achieved my EdD in 2021 regarding learning and teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) using online community projects in secondary schools. This interest stems from more than thirty years of experience teaching English (as a Foreign Language) and English literature in state schools in the south of Italy. During this time, I have continually experimented with new approaches and techniques, especially with technology, to motivate students in their schooling. Other areas of interest include Fine Art and English literature that I studied as a BA and MA. As far as research is concerned, I am particularly interested in Action Research and sociocultural paradigms.