Content uploaded by Kjartan Skogly Kversøy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kjartan Skogly Kversøy on May 06, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Kjartan S. Kversøy 2014
International seminar in honor of visiting Professor Jean McNiff 15th October 2014 at
Campus Kjeller Lillestrøm, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences
Written by Associate Professor Kjartan Skogly Kversøy
How can participants in action research projects be included in the analysis of the data
they have produced?
Creating knowledge
I have been exploring ways of using the classical definition of knowledge in a practical way
relevant for action research projects (Kversøy, 2004). I believe I am creating knowledge but
need ways of justifying my beliefs in a mainstream-ish manor. Here follows my practical
action research version of the classical definition of knowledge:
1. To claim you are creating knowledge is to believe you are creating knowledge. Here is
an example: "I am creating knowledge about the possibility of including research
partners (in some projects called informants) in analysis of data concerning the project
they have participated" (Hartviksen & Kversøy, 2008).
2. The second part of the classical definition of knowledge can be interpreted as showing
“the thing itself” or representing “the truth”: "I show my creation of knowledge about
the possibility for more democratic participation in research by writing our stories
about how my research partners and I have worked together in the analysis of data."
(Kversøy, 2013a).
1
Kjartan S. Kversøy 2014
3. The third part of the classical definitions of knowledge is about giving reasons. "One
reason is that by including the participants in the analysis of data things have emerged
that I did not see when I looked at the data by myself. Another reason is that when all
the participants see the same it gives validity to what I claim we are seeing. Yet
another reason is that we have shown that it is practically possible" (Kversøy, 2011a).
I experiment with this because I have some bad experiences with the way researchers do their
analysis. I am concerned that researchers far too often choose to do their analysis as a one-
person activity. I will go so far as to say that sometimes the results of such analysis can be
oppressive. Have you ever experienced an authority person (teacher, parent) tell you what is
“really” going on while you see the case entirely different? In many cases this can have
serious consequences. Sometimes it can even be stigmatizing for a person’s understanding of
themselves. An alternative is for you as a researcher to ask the participants what they see and
then tell back what you see (Kversøy, 2013b).
Teambuilding in action research
My experience is that it is very important to use quite a bit of energy in building good
relations between the participants in an action research project (Hartviksen, Kversøy &
Stålhane, 2007). I feel it is necessary to do maintenance work every time we meet to keep the
relations healthy (Kversøy, 2012). One of the things I ask the participants to do the first time
we meet is to go over to a person they don’t know (or don’t usually speak to) and present
themselves and what they like to do. I let these pairs talk for two or three minutes before I ask
them to take their partner and find another pair they don’t know (or usually don’t spend time
with). This time they are asked to present their partner and what they like to do. This little
exercise does a lot of good to a new group. Everyone is seen gets to say something and gets to
2
Kjartan S. Kversøy 2014
hear another person say something about who they are and what they like to do. For some
people this is an everyday thing. For others it is something rare (Kversøy, 2011b). It’s very
simple and takes only a little bit of time. It’s a good investment for the project.
One example of the way I facilitate maintenance work is to invite the participants to
sing a song, read a poem, tell a joke, show something they have made or for example show a
YouTube piece that has caught their attention (Kversøy, 2012). Little things like this make a
whole lot of difference. It can also be simple things like reorganizing the chairs and tables in
the room we are working. Doing something together is communicating (Hartviksen, Kversøy
& Stålhane, 2008a). Another example is I don’t know how many itchy situations that have
become better when I make some noise with my Jews Harp. There is a lot of ways of doing
this kind of work. My main message here is that this is very important. It is the first thing on
my plan the first time we meet. When I fail to have this is focus, I usually have to pay the
price.
It is smart to make some ground rules
Early in an action research project I always ask the participants what they need to feel
comfortable in the project (Hartviksen, Kversøy & Stålhane, 2008b). Many participants find
the question a bit strange. Often, I need to come with some examples (Hartviksen & Kversøy,
2008). My experience is that a group needs rules. They need rules that are made by or are
acceptable to the group(Hartviksen, Kversøy & Stålhane, 2009). As a leader of the project I
also have the need for some rules. Here are some rules that work well:
To want what is good for ourselves and the other participants in the group
Room for humor
Room for “stupid” questions
Speak on my own behalf
3
Kjartan S. Kversøy 2014
Focus on possibilities
Give each other the right to stop each other
Try to speak short so that there is time for everyone to speak
Focus on the concerns of the participants here and now
Focus on our need, interests and wishes for the future for ourselves and the group
Focus on what each one of us is willing do to get there.
Together with teambuilding making rules in a group is essential for me (Hartviksen &
Kversøy, 2008). I is a way of caring for the group. I have met many groups suffering from
neglect. Leadership in a group is also about making agreements between the participants
about how we want our relationship to be.
Participation in judging the quality of an action research project
I am concerned that participants in action research projects are not sufficiently included in
telling what is important for them. One such thing is finding out together what would be the
signs of a good project for the persons concerned. I have experimented with this and can say
that putting our understanding of quality into words is empowering for the participants. In the
introduction to John Dewey book Democracy and Education (1985), Sidney Hook writes that
democratic life is impossible unless experts can be evaluated by non-experts. He claims that
you do not need to be an expert to evaluate the recommendation of experts. I have tried to
take this seriously by asking my participants to tell me as an expert researcher what they think
would be good results in our project. I ask them questions like: “What would be a sign that
this project is good for you?” “How do we know that this has been a good project?” Many of
the answers have been important for me. Here are some typical examples: A project is of good
quality if the documentation is in an everyday language. The project is good if the results
make my work life a little better. I hope we are still friends when we are finished.
4
Kjartan S. Kversøy 2014
References
Dewey, J. (1985) (reprint 1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press
Hartviksen, M. & Kversøy, K. S. (2008). Samarbeid og konflikt: to sider av samme sak.
Bergen: Fagbokforlaget
Hartviksen, M., Kversøy, K. S. & Stålhane, J. (2007). Ny kurs … eller bare nytt kurs?
Yrkesdidaktisk kunnskapsutvikling og implementering av kunnskapsløftet i videregående skole
med særlig fokus på relevans, mening og medvirkning. Kjeller: Forskningsrapport for KIP-AF
registret i ForskDok og lagt ut på www.fiff.no
Kversøy, E. D. (2011a). Verdier i praksis: synliggjøring og videreutvikling. Oslo:
Diakonhjemmets høgskole.
Kversøy, K. S. (2013a). Etikk – en praktisk vinkling. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget
Kversøy, K. S. (2013b). Systematisk veiledning i lærerutdanningen med pedagogisk
utviklingsarbeid som kjerneaktivitet. I: Lingås, Lars Gunnar og Olsen, Knut-Rune (red.).
Pedagogisk veiledning. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk
Kversøy, K. S. (2012). Forskningsfortelling for høsten 2011 og første samling vår 2012.
Kjeller: Intern datasamling for alle deltagerne i aksjonsforskningsprosjektet og for de eksterne
analysedeltagerne
Kversøy, K. S. (2011b). SØT-modellen: Fokus på endring, handling og mestring. I: Høihilder,
Eli Kari og Olsen, Knut-Rune (2011) (red.). Pedagogisk veiledning: Metoder og
tilnærmingsmåter. Oslo: Pedlex Norsk Skoleinformasjon
Kversøy, K. S. (2004). Om formidling og forståelse i den praktiskmoralske diskursen. Oslo:
Universitetet i Oslo
5
Kjartan S. Kversøy 2014
Hartviksen, M., Kversøy, K. S. & Stålhane, J. (2008a). Hvordan legge til rette for validering i
aksjonsforskning gjennom strukturert refleksjon i gruppe? Kjeller: Paper registret i ForskDok
Hartviksen, M., Kversøy, K. S. & Stålhane, J. (2008b). Om å ta folk på alvor –
Kunnskapsløftet fra ord til handling. Yrkesdidaktisk kunnskapsutvikling og implementering av
kunnskapsløftet i videregående skole med særlig fokus på relevans, mening og medvirkning.
Kjeller: Forskningsrapport for KIP-AF registret i Forsk Dok og lagt ut på www.fiff.no
Hartviksen, M., Kversøy, K. S. & Stålhane, J. (2009). Medvirkning - hva, hvordan og
hvorfor? Yrkesdidaktisk kunnskapsutvikling og implementering av kunnskapsløftet i
videregående skole med særlig fokus på medvirkning. Kjeller: Forskningsrapport for KIP-AF
registret i ForskDok og lagt ut på www.fiff.no
6