This article was downloaded by: [190.122.186.201]On: 22 March 2014, At: 10:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Action ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Striving for quality when quantity seemsto countLinda Haggarty a , Sandra Amos a , John Oversby a & Margaret Spear aa University of Reading, United KingdomPublished online: 07 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Linda Haggarty , Sandra Amos , John Oversby & Margaret Spear (1999) Strivingfor quality when quantity seems to count, Educational Action Research, 7:2, 191-205, DOI:10.1080/09650799900200088

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650799900200088

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Striving for Quality when Quantity Seems to Count

LINDA HAGGARTY, SANDRA AMOS, JOHN OVERSBY & MARGARET SPEARUniversity of Reading, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT This article explores the difficulties a group of higher education

lecturers faced, as they worked together, in a collaborative action research

project with a group of teachers. It begins with the identification of the plans and

framework for action for the solution of both first order research questions

(shared by teachers in the group) and second order research question (shared by

lecturers in the group). From data collected, it emerged that a particular

unanticipated problem was that of the tensions generated between the lecturers

as they engaged in the project. A consideration of those tensions leads us to the

conclusion that lecturers themselves face problems when they work

collaboratively, and need their own plans and strategies for dealing with them.

In addition, the intensification of lecturers work in higher education is identified

as unhelpful for thoughtful and principled research, and may, indeed, lead to

mediocrity in research.

Introduction

The Science and Mathematics Action Research Team (SMART) was a team of

four university lecturers, and some 20 science and mathematics teachers

from local secondary schools.[1] SMART aimed to bring about improvement

in science and mathematics teaching. Teachers and lecturers in the team

approached this task in an action research framework, as reflective

practitioners (Schön, 1983, 1987).

Within this reflective practice framework, SMART encouraged

teachers to analyse their teaching in terms of current literature and of the

particular circumstances of their own schools. Teachers were also asked to

identify areas that they thought they would like to improve; to plan, and

take specific actions with a view to improving their teaching and subsequent

learning; and to evaluate their actions in terms of theoretical and practical

criteria. SMART, as a whole, was therefore committed to the identification of

actions, which led to demonstrated improvements in teaching and learning.

As well as aiming to improve learning in science and mathematics,

we also considered that such research was likely to inform the debate about

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

191

Educational Action Research, Volume 7, No. 2, 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

effective teacher change, as well as providing insights into alternative

strategies for school teacher development through collaboration with Higher

Education lecturers.

SMART s first order concern was, ultimately, to improve science and

mathematics learning in schools. This first order concern was one shared by

the whole group of participants, both the school teachers and the higher

education lecturers. How successful we were as a group, each taking the

actions we were best placed to engage in, depended on the results of those

actions. Thus, as a whole group, we wanted to be aware of how we planned

and acted; we were interested in our successes, but we were also interested

in our failures, so that we could take our insights from our analysis of these

failures into account in future plans.

Our first order research questions were therefore:

� How can SMART as a whole most usefully address teachers concerns

about pupils learning?

� What actions, taken in what circumstances, lead to an improvement in

pupils learning?

In addition, there was a second order concern shared by the four higher

education lecturers. The four lecturers wanted to persuade teachers to:

attend meetings; identify their concerns; use the context of the group to

develop and test new ideas in their own practice; evaluate and reflect on

those actions; and identify new concerns. The problem to be addressed was

how we as lecturers could support and help teachers to engage in those

activities with the intention that they might improve learning, their own and

that of their pupils. We knew what we wanted to do, what we could offer,

what our plans might entail, but we were not entirely sure that we would be

successful because our actions might not be the most appropriate for our

purpose or, if appropriate, might not be sufficient. Thus, we needed to

explore at the meta-level how we set about our task so that we could identify

any problems and take actions to solve those problems. In the long-term,

this second order concern would therefore allow us to make generalisations

about ways in which lecturers could help teachers improve their practice.

Our second order research question was, therefore, how can we, a

group of higher education lecturers, support and help teachers to take

actions which might improve learning?

The identification of the research questions and the decision to use

action research was taken after discussion between the four lecturers, who

used as a basis for their decision the expertise already developed by two of

the lecturers who had worked in a similar way with another group of

teachers (see Haggarty & Postlethwaite, 1995).

Framework within which Actions Were Planned

Carr & Kemmis (1991, p. 202) write that when facilitators work with

teachers, they often create circumstances in which project control is not in

teachers hands . Different facilitators roles establish different kinds of

LINDA HAGGARTY ET AL

192

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

action research: technical , practical or emancipatory . This led us as

researchers to question the roles and responsibilities of members of the

group. It seemed far from obvious that teachers would necessarily want to

reflect on their practice through their writing, for example. Indeed, it could

be argued that this might have the effect of adding even more to their

already crowded teaching schedules (see, for example, Travers & Cooper,

1995), together with additional tasks associated with being members of the

group and with no purpose. Similarly, it seemed that lecturers were better

placed to do some things and teachers others. Consequently, our decision

was to interpret collaboration as one in which we adopted broadly

complementary roles, with teachers and lecturers each accepting

responsibility for carrying out tasks which they were best placed to do, with

a mutual recognition of the distinct expertise both had to offer and an

explicit awareness that each had a great deal to learn from the collaboration.

At the same time, we knew that there was a fine line to be drawn between

democracy and social engineering. As consultants, we knew that we would

constantly have to ask ourselves how and when we supported teachers

without taking control of the process (Noffke, 1989). This did not mean, for

us, that we should therefore adopt the role of sympathetic co-operator.

Indeed, we recognised the need to maintain a balance between sympathetic

co-operation and daring provocation (Messner & Rach, 1995).

Given the importance, as we saw it, of making explicit the role of the

lecturers, we identified a number of principles to guide our actions:

� allow the teachers to define the specific problems and issues for

investigation within the framework of the shared aim of addressing the

needs of individual learners;

� help the teachers to clarify their specific problems and issues for

investigation by focusing attention on their practice;

� match theoretical inputs to the problems and issues as they emerged from

teachers reflections about their concrete problems;

� provide opportunities for the teachers to deepen their own understanding

of issues through discussion with each other.

Within this, lecturers would:

� chair and minute all meetings, with minuting allowing them to produce

detailed notes of the sort teachers were unlikely to have time to produce;

� collect data related both to the first and second order concerns;

� share with teachers the emerging issues from the data analysis;

� locate resources that would help teachers in their development work;

� carry out tasks, as far as they were able, related to the research and the

development that could be done away from school;

� seek the help of higher education colleagues when issues arose relating to

their interests and specialisms;

� take responsibility, on behalf of the group, for securing funding as the

work progressed.

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

We also identified a theoretical model for supporting teacher development in

SMART based on research by Bell & Gilbert (1994), who argue in their

research project with science teachers that:

... teacher development can be described as personal, social and

professional development. Personal development involved

attending to feelings about the change process, being a teacher,

and about science education. Professional development involved

changing concepts and beliefs about science education, and

changing classroom activities. Social development involved

working with and relating to other teachers and students in new

ways.

They go on to argue that:

These three aspects were interactive and interdependent. The

process of teacher development can be seen as one in which

personal, professional, and social development is occurring, and

one in which development in one aspect cannot proceed unless the

other aspects develop also.

The extensive research carried out by Bell & Gilbert (1996) with teachers of

science led us to the conclusion that this was a helpful framework within

which to work with science and mathematics teachers in SMART. Using

their framework for guidance, we therefore recognised that there was a need

to:

Attend to Personal Development Issues. Initially, this implied that teachers

needed to be helped to recognise that an aspect of their practice was

problematic (which may not have been recognised by teachers told to attend

meetings by their school/department) and be helped to see the recognition of

problems as a mark of professional maturity, not of incompetence, all of this

within the context of encouraging them to value their teaching competence

overall.

Secondly, it implied that personal fears which developed during the

process (associated with such things as losing control, the extent of their

intervention in the classroom, covering the curriculum, knowing the subject,

meeting assessment requirements, coming to terms with new relationships

with pupils, appraisal) also need to be attended to.

Thirdly, it implied helping teachers move towards a recognition that

they were empowered by taking responsibility for their own development.

Attend to Social Development Issues. Initially, this implied encouraging

teachers to recognise the limitations of working in isolation and the value of

working collaboratively, although it was acknowledged that for some this

might be seen as threatening.

Secondly, it implied the need to encourage teachers to talk about that

collaborative work as trust developed between participants.

LINDA HAGGARTY ET AL

194

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

Thirdly, it implied that teachers might be encouraged to look to each

other for ideas on how to solve problems so that they might continue to work

collaboratively (and without lecturers) on shared concerns.

Attend to Professional Development Issues. This implied giving teachers time

to talk about their practice, considering that it might be achieved through

encouragement of the adoption of the roles of teacher-as-researcher and

teacher-as-learner. It might also have involved the use of prepared activities,

which teachers might try out in their own classrooms so that a sharing of

experiences could develop.

Secondly, it implied allowing time for discussion to focus on personal

cognitive development, as well as development of classroom practice.

Thirdly, it implied encouraging teachers to recognise their expertise as

something that could be shared with outsiders (either through the

establishment of their own groups or through writing).

Later in this article, we re-interpret this framework for lecturers working as

action researchers.

A Brief Summary of What was Achieved

A committed group of teachers was established who attended meetings

regularly in the university. They identified differentiation as a key area in

which they were seeking improvement in their practice. Within

differentiation, they highlighted the specific topics of attending to differences

in scale reading, in graph drawing and interpretation, and in algebra as

matters for attention within science and mathematics classes. They agreed

that mastery learning (Bloom, 1976) was a helpful framework within which

to develop and deploy differentiation tactics. We reviewed the literature on

pupils difficulties and a group of teachers, together with a lecturer, worked

together to develop and trial materials on each of the topics.

This development was further informed by teachers own investigations

of the particular difficulties faced by their own pupils. For example, pupils

were tape recorded while working on a scale reading exercise in order to

determine what language they used to talk about scale, and to gain insights

into the kinds of problems that they had. An Interviews about Instances

procedure (Gilbert et al, 1985) was also considered as another way of

shedding light on the issue. Evaluation of the teaching approaches was

planned. These gave rise to positive outcomes for teachers. Given that much

of this article is concerned with problems encountered by the lecturers, it is

important to note the teachers and lecturers recognition of the success of

SMART, and the enthusiasm they had for the group:

We really explored the nature of the problems the kids were

having. We came to a better understanding of the nature of the

problems and the fundamental reasons for the problems. (Teacher

member of SMART)

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

The teachers have demonstrated huge goodwill in being willing to

share their problems, and risk their ideas ... (Lecturer)

those teachers who are committed are very committed. The

regular SMART teachers are enthusiastic and dynamic. They go

away and do things. An inspiration ... (Lecturer)

... it s very exciting. At the end of the meetings I know that SMART

is the most important bit of my working life, but I can t sustain that

level of effort. (Lecturer)

As the last comment illustrates, however, the lecturers were facing

difficulties in their working conditions. All four were busy lecturers in either

Science or Mathematics education, all struggling to keep face-to-face

teaching down to about 500 hours each year, with workloads that included:

PGCE secondary, BA(Ed) primary and MSc teaching; PhD supervision;

directorships of major courses; and simultaneously a demand to continue

with research towards publication for the Research Assessment Exercise.

Finding time to complete a bid for funding to create more time to commit to

the project became impossible. Finding time to plan and reflect between

meetings with teachers was equally difficult. As a result, the lecturers felt

obliged to suspend the project when one of the four left the university and

was not replaced, so that even more teaching and administrative demands

were made on the three who remained. The decision was made reluctantly

and teachers in SMART were sympathetic to the problems faced by the

lecturers. The foci of this article are the difficulties this and some of the

actions caused between the group of lecturers. Whilst it may be seen as an

indulgence to focus on difficulties faced only by the lecturers when teachers

were also being asked to do a great deal, we argue that there is little

available in the literature on the former issue and our subsequent reflections

may therefore provide a stimulus for discussion about it.

Difficulties Faced by the Lecturers’ Group

Use of the Limited Time Available

Because as lecturers we found too little time to meet together and too little

time to carry out tasks between meetings, we tended to use what time we

could find to attend to first order concerns, and our own research agenda

(our second order concern) was neglected.

We were worried about not reaching our objectives of seeing how

the research was going. We were driven by the teachers

objectives. We didn t deal as seriously as we could/should/might

have with the tutor objectives.

Because we didn t meet often enough, we sometimes went to a

teachers meeting inadequately prepared at the research and the

LINDA HAGGARTY ET AL

196

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

practical level. A cycle developed. I would start a meeting feeling

bad, and leave feeling good.

We tended to focus on what the teachers were doing. This dragged

us off our SMART research agenda.

Therefore, despite our best intentions, despite our awareness that we had a

second order concern and had planned how to address it, and despite our

awareness that, in action research, there needs to be a research concern

running alongside a development concern, we still found that the

inevitability and regularity of meetings with teachers meant that the limited

time we had was spent on development and reflection on our first order

concern. We simply felt we could not let the teachers down. Thus, whilst we

carried out most of the actions we had planned (p. 195), we did not

systematically collect data related to our second order concern, nor did we

secure funding for work in progress.

However, a small amount of funding had originally been made available

to the group, and this allowed the four lecturers to employ a research

assistant to collect data from teachers during the project and lecturers at the

end of the project. Some of these data were collected from interviews with

each of the four lecturers just before the project ended, and each lasted

between half-an-hour and 2 hours. The interviews were informal in nature

and, although a list of topics was drawn up, not all the topics were

discussed with every lecturer due to shortage of time. Moreover, the topics

were not broached in any fixed order, but each lecturer was encouraged to

speak around issues as they arose. What emerged were thoughts in our

minds at that time, which was when we all felt particularly frustrated that

SMART activities were to end. Nevertheless, our thinking at that time

identifies some important issues for lecturers, which relate both to the ways

in which they collaborate with each other on research projects, and the ways

in which their own aspirations for worthwhile research conflict with external

demands for measurable and identifiable research activity leading to

publication within limited periods of time.

Inattention to Lecturers’ Personal, Social and Professional Development

We fear that the comments that follow may lead readers to conclude that we

failed to work together in positive ways. In fact, we remain close friends and

collaborators! However, we think the problems we faced are far more useful

to explore in this article.

Although we recognised in our original planning that we needed to

build into our actions with teachers time for their personal, social and

professional development (Bell & Gilbert, 1994), we realise now that we did

not consider that there might be a similar need for ourselves. The difficulties

arising as a result of this emerged in a number of ways. Some were related to

personal development issues so that, for example, lecturers insecurities

remained unexplored:

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

I felt very insecure when the large group [of teachers and lecturers]

split into three small groups. When we were in one large group, I

could learn from the other tutors. If we had stayed as a whole

group, then there would have been more benefit for me and my

group. I felt my group were behind because of me ... When it s one

tutor with teachers, the tutor is in a very vulnerable position.

After the group split into three sub-groups, the tutor team needed

to find more time to share what each group was doing. We didn t

make that time.

When operating as a whole group, the tutors can learn from each

other and support each other. In the sub-groups, tutors are on their

own, without the support of other tutors.

Others were related to social development issues with, for example, too little

time spent resolving tensions between the four lecturers working

collaboratively:

We have not tackled the social relationship between tutors.

Tutors were aware that members of the team showed different

levels of commitment to SMART. The priority and importance that

they afforded SMART differed. Consequently they devoted

different amounts of time and effort to SMART. This translated into

different degrees of dependability and conscientiousness

regarding SMART activities.

Tutors need to talk about what they feel about SMART and

what they feel about the other tutors contributions. But this was

driven underground.

Because of differences in the tutors expertise and commitment to

SMART, tasks were not evenly distributed across the tutor team.

Furthermore, tutors devoted differing amounts of time and effort to

completing tasks set. These inequalities resulted in a lot of bad

feeling.

There were similar failures to address professional development issues:

We didn t share how we felt, what was going on, our role, what

we did. We didn t explore our practice.

I wanted to talk about our difficulties and agree on ways

forward .

What seems clear now was that the limited time we gave ourselves for our

second order concern resulted in difficulties that were rather more complex

than we had expected. It was not simply a case of neglecting research on our

LINDA HAGGARTY ET AL

198

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

own practice, it involved neglect of our feelings about working together and

on our own, it resulted in lack of support and mutual encouragement, and

in tensions over perceived inequalities in efforts made by each of us on the

project.

The Need to Attend to Differences in Expertise between Lecturers

Implicit in our actions as a collaborative and democratic group of

researchers was that issues would be discussed and actions agreed relatively

unproblematically, as we tried to answer our research questions. However,

we failed to take into account in our planning the relative insecurities of

what turned out to be all lecturers, the ways in which these would inhibit

our contributions, and the power structures that became apparent even as

the group claimed to be democratic.

The different research expertise and experience of the tutors is

both a strength and a source of tension.

Tutors who have less experience of action research and the

collaborative style of research adopted by SMART need more time

and help to become familiar.

I felt intimidated at the beginning. I was not full-time and I had not

started my PhD. [two of the tutors ] were active experienced

researchers, experts who had written a lot. I was there to learn

from them. I felt rude to even have an opinion. I didn t say much. I

was in awe of [ the two tutors ] They saw the picture clearly. I was

in a fog. I have learnt a lot. Research is not how I imagined.

However, the two expert researchers recognised some of these difficulties

themselves and one suggested that:

There needs to be a strand of research connected to the actions of

the tutors.

This implied that a third order research question might have been helpful,

with the more experienced researchers deliberately planning how they could

support less experienced researchers as they moved towards an equitable

way of working.

When we discussed the feelings we all had in the light of the comments

we each made in our interviews, it became clear that we all faced a

complexity of emotions and insecurities about our relative experience as

researchers. One lecturer, whose comments are included above, did indeed

say little in the few meetings we had together. Another lecturer, who also

had little experience of action research, spoke at length in those meetings,

but not about action research. His insecurities (in retrospect) were apparent

because of his strategy of avoidance and, indeed, his decision to sit,

physically, outside the group circle during meetings. The two lecturers who

were described as experts, on the other hand, did not see themselves as

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

experts, and were reluctant both to dominate meetings and to control

discussions so that the planned agenda was addressed in the time available.

It is interesting that Heron (1990) argues that collaborative research,

which results in problems of this kind, is inauthentic, with the less

experienced researchers merely yes-people, being guided and shepherded

into appropriate behaviour without any real grasp of what they are about (p.

55). Given that there are parallels between his description and the problems

described here, it seems important to reinforce the need for attention to

differences from the outset.

External Pressures on the Four Lecturers

We argued earlier that the four lecturers felt under pressure from the range

of complex and competing demands on their time. In terms of SMART, we

found that external demands on the lecturers for publications for the

Research Assessment Exercise, which were, in turn, translated into internal

demands and expectations, together with increasing teaching and

administration loads, worked against our own struggles for more time and

our attempts to secure funding to continue. Indeed, despite the problems

described above, we all remained committed to the project and to high

quality research output from the project.

One interesting tension remained unresolved by the time SMART suspended

its activities and that related to funding. The lecturers recognised the need

for it:

It is unlikely that SMART will go into another cycle without some

funding. SMART/action research needs a lot of energy to make it

work well. We have worked hard with a view to getting funding.

At the same time as trying to get that funding, there was an ambivalent

attitude towards it. Funding might result in less teaching:

Even if SMART had had money, some (but not all) of the tutors

would have been reluctant to buy themselves out from other

activities, because that would have meant giving up some of their

teaching commitments.

It is important to comment at this point that this reluctance to give up some

teaching commitments goes well beyond a kind of woolly reluctance to give

up what might be seen as a less demanding, but safe , activity. The courses

in which we were involved had been developed along sophisticated lines, and

our roles within them recognised the distinct and vital contribution we could

make to teacher education as lecturers in Higher Education (Haggarty,

1995). We neither saw those teaching roles as subordinate to our roles as

researchers, nor as roles which could easily be taken on by short-term

bought-in staff. However, that reluctance to give up some teaching in order

to spend more time on research also highlights the very real demands such a

view makes on lecturers attempting to do both well.

LINDA HAGGARTY ET AL

200

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

Discussion

In his presidential address to the British Educational Research Association

(BERA) in 1989, Elliott (1990) argues for the need for conversational

research communities in which areas of consensus emerge ... but provide

only temporary resting places before they are disrupted or transcended by

deviant voices. The ethos of such communities are characterised by tolerance

for disagreement, deviance, and idiosyncrasy , warning, in addition, that

such communities are not easy to sustain in dogmatic institutional and

political climates . It seems to us that our research was, indeed, conducted

in such a climate and that we therefore became intolerant of the very

characteristics that he argued as essential for a conversational research

community. Once time for reflection is under threat in action research, its

very dynamic nature is in danger of being reduced to a pre-prescribed

method, with a well-defined set of procedures and routines. It seems to us

that this is a sure recipe for mediocrity in research.

Action research as a disciplined enquiry is both demanding and

difficult. In particular, it requires time if participants are to reflect usefully

on the actions taken. Kemmis & McTaggart (1982) argue that Reflection is

usually aided by discussion among participants. Through discourse,

reflection leads to the reconstruction of the meaning of the social situation

and provides the basis for the revised plan . What took place in the research

described here attended to this for first order concerns, but neglected it for

second order concerns, at least within the time we had available. That, in

turn, resulted in problems for the lecturers as they increasingly failed to act

collaboratively to reflect on their actions while they attempted to support the

teachers in the group. It has been argued that this was due, largely, to

insufficient time being allocated by them to this reflection. However, to argue

that this was the only reason would be too simplistic, since we also failed to

anticipate some of the complexities that emerged from working together.

Indeed, it became clear that the framework we used to support teacher

change (Bell & Gilbert, 1994) and used in the planning phase of this project,

would have been useful for us as lecturers collaborating in the project.

Whether or not such a framework would be substantially different for

lecturers from what it is for teachers is, as far as we are aware, still an issue

for enquiry, although we note that Reason (1990) offers comments on

research groups which are consistent with our ideas. Thus, we would

suggest that any group of lecturers collaborating in a research project

should build in significant time not just for collaborative planning and

reflection on actions taken, but should also allow significant amounts of

unstructured time for discussion of personal, professional and social needs.

In terms of personal needs, we would argue on the basis of reflections

on this work that lecturers need to work in a culture in which time is

available to attend to those needs. This would involve a recognition that

lecturers:

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

� feel uncertain, insecure and threatened when they engage in aspects of

their work;

� need to be helped to recognise what they do well at the same time as

identifying those things that could be further improved;

� need to work within a culture in which each individual can

simultaneously be a learner about some aspects of their work as well as

expert in others;

� there needs to be a recognition that both teaching and research aspects of

their work are equally valuable, but by attempting to do both well, there

are high demands made on the individuals.

In terms of the professional needs of lecturers as researchers, there needs to

be:

� time allowed to learn, read, think, question;

� a culture that accepts that high quality research is difficult, and

worthwhile outcomes not easily arrived at;

� an acceptance of the tensions between imposed and external demands for

output with personal, professional aspirations as researchers.

In terms of the social needs of lecturers as they develop research groups,

there needs to be a recognition that group members need to:

� allow time for the social, informal development of a conversational

research community as well as time for its professional development;

� discuss their strengths and the identified areas of relative weakness,

which need support;

� discuss the commitment of each member to the group, and reach

agreement on the acceptability of this to other group members;

� identify ways of working: for example, is there to be a leader? Who is to

take responsibility for elements of the work (taking into account existing

expertise, and personal and professional development needs), such as

calling meetings, writing minutes, generating bids for funding, liaising

with teachers and so on?

Above all, there needs to be an acceptance that the group is a learning

group, with individuals needing time to explore personal and professional

concerns, and with a shared responsibility for supporting each individual in

doing so.

The concept of intensification is drawn from general theories of the

labour process (Larson, 1980) and is discussed in terms of school teachers

work by Apple (1986) and Hargreaves (1994). Apple, for example, argues that

intensification can lead to the loss of time to keep up with one s field: one of

the most significant aspects of intensification may be reducing the quality,

not the quantity, of service provided to people since it may cause teachers to

cut corners . There is so much to do that simply accomplishing what is

specified requires nearly all of one s efforts (p. 44). Hargreaves adds that

from his work frequently teachers appeared to drive themselves with almost

merciless enthusiasm and commitment in an attempt to meet the virtually

LINDA HAGGARTY ET AL

202

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

unattainable standards of pedagogical perfection they set themselves (p.

126)

Whether or not we set ourselves unattainable standards of pedagogical

perfection and, given that university lecturers teaching on ITE courses are

appointed partly because of their success as teachers, there may be some

truth in this we would certainly suggest that intensification may be a

helpful concept when trying to understand the tensions we felt here.

The ways in which we cut corners was to give too little time to working

(and reflecting) collaboratively and Little (1990) notes that there are high

transaction costs to participatory work most prominently in time (an

opportunity cost) and the risk conflict (a cost to organisational cohesion) .

Disentangling these factors is far from simple. Did we, for example, choose to

use the time available to discuss first order concerns because we feared that

addressing second order concerns might risk conflict? Indeed, Little argues

that To contain conflict, all may be inclined to reserve joint deliberations to

those areas in which agreement is more likely .

Another issue of importance was that of how the group of lecturers

might have more usefully established a democratic framework for

themselves in which to plan, act, observe and reflect. The notion of the more

experienced researchers simply taking on the role of leaders seemed to sit

uncomfortably alongside our views of action research, yet by rejecting the

role and taking no planned, explicit actions to address issues of perceived

expertise and power resulted in disempowerment for others in the group. We

therefore suggest that when experienced action researchers work with

colleagues, they have a third order of concern to be addressed through

action research relating to how they might support relatively inexperienced

colleagues in their development as action researchers.

McIntyre argues (1997), in his BERA presidential address of 1996

under the heading that good educational research is difficult that:

even to be able to read critically and intelligently the previous

research conducted on a particular aspect of education, from

different perspectives and using different approaches, is a highly

demanding task . to be a good educational researcher one

needs extensive knowledge, wide-ranging expertise and creative

intelligence, to an extent that is only likely to be achievable

through the disciplined commitment that is sometimes described as

professionalism.

We certainly agree that good educational research is difficult, although we

also recognise that there is an interesting debate raised here about just who

the professionals are in educational research when HEI tutors and teachers

collaborate in the activity.

We have tried to identify in this article some aspects of a research

study that we have not come across in the literature and which we argue

also needs attention. That these need conscious attention is, perhaps, a sign

of the times; recognition that there are competing demands on the time

available and that sustaining any kind of serious research endeavour is

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

extremely demanding anyway. However, we would argue that unless we

attend to them within the current climate where quantity seems to count,

there is a very great danger that potentially excellent research will reach no

more than mediocrity.

Correspondence

Dr Linda Haggarty, School of Education, University of Reading, Bulmershe

Court, Earley, Reading RG6 1HY, United Kingdom

(l.m.haggarty@reading.ac.uk).

Note

[1] The lecturers in SMART were Sandra Amos, Linda Haggarty, John Oversby and

Keith Postlethwaite. We were all based at the University of Reading, although

Keith Postlethwaite moved to the University of the West of England during the

project. Margaret Spear was the research assistant.

References

Apple, M.W. (1986) Teachers and Texts. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bell, B. & Gilbert, J. (1994) Teacher development as professional, personal and social

development, Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, pp. 483 497.

Bell, B. & Gilbert, J. (1996) Teacher Development: a model from science education.

London: Falmer Press.

Bloom, B.S. (1976) Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw

Hill.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1991) Becoming Critical. Education, Knowledge and Action

Research. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Elliott, J. (1990) Educational research in crisis: performance indicators and the

decline in excellence, British Educational Research Journal, 16 pp. 3 18.

Gilbert, J.K., Watts, D.M. & Osborne, R.J. (1985) Eliciting student views using an

interview-about-instances technique, in L.H. West & A. Pines (Eds) Cognitive

Structure and Conceptual Change. New York: Academic Press.

Haggarty, L. (1995) New Ideas for Teacher Education: a framework for mathematics.

London: Cassell.

Haggarty, L. & Postlethwaite, K. (1995) Working as consultants on school based,

teacher identified problems, Educational Action Research, 3, pp. 169 181.

Hargreaves, A. (1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times. London: Cassell.

Heron, J. (1990) Validity in co-operative inquiry, in P. Reason (Ed.) Human Inquiry in

Action: developments in new paradigm research. London: Sage.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1982) The Action Research Planner. Victoria: Deakin

University Press.

Larson, S.M. (1980) Proletarianization and educated labor, Theory and Society, 9,

pp. 131 175.

Little, J.W. (1990) The persistence of privacy: autonomy and initiative in teachers

professional relations, Teachers College Record, 91, pp. 509 535.

LINDA HAGGARTY ET AL

204

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014

McIntyre, D. (1997) The profession of educational research, British Educational

Research Journal, 23, pp. 127 140.

Messner, E. & Rauch, F. (1995) Dilemmas of facilitating action research, Educational

Action Research, 3, pp. 41 53.

Noffke, S.E. (1989) The social context of action research: a comparative and historical

analysis, paper presented at the AERE Conference, San Francisco.

Reason, P. (Ed.) (1990) Human Inquiry in Action. Developments in New Paradigm

Research. London: Sage.

Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action.

London: Temple Smith.

Schön, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Toward a New Design for

Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Travers, C. & Cooper, C. (1995) Teachers under Pressure: stress in the teaching

profession. London: Routledge.

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

190.

122.

186.

201]

at 1

0:13

22

Mar

ch 2

014