narrative inquiry conf paper_the story and working on practice knowledge

The Story and Working on Practice Knowledge Dianne Allen February, 2008 1

Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong

The Story and Working on Practice Knowledge Dianne Allen

Contents

The Story and Working on Practice Knowledge ........................................................................................................ 1

Contents .................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Abstract..................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 2

Some Current Conceptual Understandings – the frame that I operate in ..................................................................... 3

Practice Knowledge ............................................................................................................................................... 3

The Practice Story ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Sharing and Honing Practice Knowledge ............................................................................................................... 5

Participatory action research and similar modes of collaborative inquiry ............................................................... 5

Self-Study ............................................................................................................................................................. 6

An Example of Using the Story to Work on Practice Knowledge .............................................................................. 6

Table 1: Distinctive Features of EDGZ921 ............................................................................................................ 7

So what happens for the students as they participate in this unit of study? ............................................................. 9

Table 2: Summary Analysis of Inputs and Outcomes for EDGZ921 Spring 2007 .................................................11

How does opening our stories to external testing help us understand more of what we are doing and provide leverage

for ideas for change that might develop our practice? ...............................................................................................11

What is involved in the deployment of our own rigor in the story construction? ...................................................12

What is involved in the exposure of a constructed story to the rigor tests of peers? ...............................................12

Seeing intimations of this in the EDGZ921 program and student responses and learning ..........................................13

Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................................................15

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................15

Appendix: Course Documentation for EDGZ921 Introduction to Research and Inquiry ...........................................17

PRESENTATION: ...................................................................................................................................................20



Abstract

This paper examines the way in which storying is part of the sharing of practice knowledge, and

how this might be tapped for more effective professional development interactions.

Practitioners, seeking to share their practice knowledge, and to develop their practice knowledge,

regularly share practice stories, frequently identified as „anecdotes‟, and sometimes disparaged as

„anecdotal evidence‟. In examining this role of narrative in the development of practice

knowledge, I draw on a variety of theoretical strands related to the nature of practice inquiry

(Schon), the nature of thinking and communication (Bateson), and the practices of participatory

and/or collaborative action research and self-study (Loughran et al, 2004).

One of my stories examines the use of narrative self-study as a way of introducing research and

inquiry to practice-relevant masters studies. One of the questions under view is: How does

opening our stories to external testing help us understand more of what we are doing and provide

leverage for ideas for change that might develop our practice? The experience of a significant

proportion of the masters students involved is that this approach allows and helps them engage in

a focused way on a practice-relevant issue for them, and for some, this move into self-study in

comparison to other ways of examining practice, is found to have personally powerful impacts.

The principles involved in the course work provide suggestions for practice-relevant professional

development activity design, one of which may lead into more intensive participatory action

research approaches to professional practice dilemmas.

Keywords: Professional development; Professional practice; Practice research

Introduction

Practitioners, seeking to share their practice knowledge, and to develop their practice knowledge,

regularly share practice stories, frequently identified as „anecdotes‟, and sometimes disparaged as

„anecdotal evidence‟. In this paper I examine the way in which storying is part of the sharing of

practice knowledge, and how this might be tapped for more effective professional development

interactions. I set out the conceptual frame in which I understand professional practice and its

development, and indicate some of the scholarship associated with this frame. I then look closely

at a unit of a masters course work which can be considered to be an example of putting these



concepts into practice and draw from that some of the principles which might guide other

professional development activities which are seeking to deliver on improved professional

practice.

Some Current Conceptual Understandings – the frame that I operate in

My awareness of the role of narrative, in inquiry, is associated with my examination of the work

of Donald Schon and his concept of reflective practice (Schon, 1983, 1987, 1991, 1995). At the

time, I was engaged in dispute resolution studies and grappling with how to learn from the

experience of playing a role in simulations of disputes and their resolution, and to do that, as

effectively and as efficiently as possible. While the literature indicates that narrative inquiry has

application in a whole range of disciplines (Riessman, 2002), my focus will be the broader

concept of professional practice, irrespective of discipline, and the recognition, enunciated by

Schon (1995), that the practising professional is often faced with operating with certain

„indeterminate zones … [of] uncertainty, complexity, uniqueness, conflict‟, and where the

epistemologies of technical rationality are not sufficient.

Practice Knowledge A good summary of what a professional‟s practice is about has been developed in Baskett and

Marsick‟s reporting of the Professionals‟ Ways of Knowing conference in 1991, where they say:

A high degree of independent judgment, based on a collective learned body of ideas,

perspectives, information, norms, and habits is also involved in professional knowing.

Generally, this judgment is used to serve other individuals and groups rather than one‟s

own self-interest. (Baskett & Marsick, 1992, p.3)

The summary reminds us that a professional, in their practice, operates, in the end, on their own,

but also, in other senses, not alone. The resources of knowledge that a professional needs to be

able to mobilise, in determining what is most appropriate in the context of the client‟s presenting

problem, are many and diverse, constituting one aspect of the complexity of practice. The

purpose of the practice is service of others. The nature of the practice is a combination of

communication and inquiry, done as rigorously as possible in the time available.



The Practice Story Later, in further reflections of the outcomes of the conference, especially in the presentation of

different suggestions of ways to engage more effectively with developing this practice

knowledge, they comment:

Many of the studies discussed at the Professionals‟ Ways of Knowing conference in

Montreal, for example, were based on in-depth qualitative analyses of contextual factors in

relation to professional learning. Storytelling emerged as an important tool both for

knowing and for passing on the lessons of the culture to new professionals. (Baskett &

Marsick, 1992, p.112)

Gregory Bateson (1979) claims that a story represents a „knot of relevance‟ and is an activity of

„mind‟. For me, the knot of relevance, particularly for the practice experience story, is an

outcome of data analysis – selecting the relevant from the noise. Further, the story often conveys

some of the interpretation – how the teller understands the meaning of the relevant. The process

of forming the story, by the teller in the first instance, involves exercising the research/ scientific

disciplines of conciseness/ elegance, and is designed to make the material available in a

communicable size.

Part of the nature of story and its communicative power lies in the process of abductive thinking,

the process that we engage in, that is different from „deduction‟ from premises, and „induction‟ of

general propositions from collected experience, and is a matter of making connections between

minds, of ideas, of experience. Once connections are made we can draw from those connections

what is common to them, and what is distinctive, and work towards „explanation‟ by mapping the

phenomena being examined onto a series of validly linked propositions (Bateson, 1987).

The professional practice story is evidence that when operating as professionals we are engaged

in collecting data, about a case, and then doing work to make sense of that data. The practice

story builds on empirical observations of practice, starting with one instance – the instance that

epitomises the issue for the practitioner. Schon (1991) tells us that the way a researcher typically

reports about a „case study‟ is with a story. Further, one of the criteria we use, as listeners, in

evaluating a story and the data behind the story, is the criterion of „coherence‟ – „how it hangs

together in an internally consistent and compelling way‟, as Schon (1991) puts it. Another

criterion is „correspondence‟ – „does it fit the facts?‟.

When a practitioner is asked to elaborate on the story, to fill in the details, and especially those

details that constitute the context of the professional activity, the listener may well be testing for

elements of correspondence, and with their own experience. It is not until that detail is exposed



that the listener is able to do the kind of cross-checking that suggests that a particular story from

their own experience has a similar „knot of relevance‟, and perhaps a similar, or different,

outcome, and where it will be worthwhile to compare the outcomes, because both instances

provide something to contribute towards understanding the phenomenon that concerns the

practitioner, and where the purpose of understanding is directed toward being able to act more

effectively. One‟s instance can then become a part of a multiple case study in a collaborative

inquiry context, and it is in this way that we move from the idiosyncratic to the more

generalisable, from the personal (subjective) to the less personal (more objective), and by mutual

testing of validity.

Sharing and Honing Practice Knowledge As Baskett and Marsick highlight, part of the process of honing practice will involve sharing

stories. Practice improvement involves considering how the practitioner is thinking about what is

going on, and especially in those aspects of practice that involve the mobilisation of an inquiry

process to problem-solve (the „cognitive apprenticeship‟ involved in studying and sharing teacher

thinking (Loughran, 2004) and other professional education (Farmer, Buckmaster & LeGrand,

1992)). From the critical incident debrief and technical process review to the critical self-study,

the development of practice knowledge, for the wider field, and for the individual practitioner, is

a matter for continuous improvement, or lifelong learning, and includes, in a variety of forms,

peer review.

Participatory action research and similar modes of collaborative inquiry One of the recent forms of working on the development of practice knowledge, in the field of

education and other practical disciplines, comes from a rejuvenated interest in action research,

and, with rejuvenation, a diversification of emphases (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis &

McTaggart, 1988, 2000; Reason & Bradbury, 2001).

One expression of working on practice knowledge using participatory action research involves a

facilitator of a group of peer practitioners using an opening workshop, designed to set the scene

for engaging in participatory processes (research or evaluation). The independent facilitator

introduces the processes involved: a round of Reflection, gathering instances of practice concerns

and the individual participants‟ reflections on that, mostly via recounting stories; a round of

Interpretation, enunciating how the participants are understanding what is going on in the

situations represented in the stories, individually and/or severally; moving on to considering how



to Decide, from the range of issues, which of the issues are most pressing and in need of more

intense and systematic inquiry; developing an Action Plan for undertaking the more intensive and

systematic inquiry on the chosen issue, collaboratively; and enunciating some preliminary

Evaluative criteria for judging „success‟ or „improvement‟ of the outcomes of the action plan

when implemented (Goff, 2002). Intentional time and space is given for the gathering of stories

of practice from the participants, and from these stories the next phases are developed. As the

participants are stepped through the processes, their experience of the processes in the workshop

are used as sources from which to draw the general principles and highlight issues associated

with participatory and collaborative activity.

Self-Study One of the dilemmas, and issues, in teacher education is that the teacher educator is doing what

they are talking about, and the efficacy of what they model depends on congruence – that they are

doing what they are espousing as best practice. Consequently, a separate area of educational

research has been carved out that focuses on self-study as a source of knowledge about teaching

practice (Loughran et al, 2004). As teacher educators have explored their own practice, and

endeavoured to make knowledge claims about their findings, they have also been engaged in

considering what is needed to satisfy demands of validity and to establish standards that represent

research quality that is appropriate when self-study is undertaken. Such standards seek to deal

with: self and the objective-subjective divide; the improvement aim of the study and associated

practical considerations; interactivity, especially between the personal and the collaborative; and

with „trustworthiness‟ being a prime quality criterion (LaBoskey, 2004). It is the combination of

these, and methods appropriate to each, that operate to secure the knowledge derived from

experience as being soundly based.

An Example of Using the Story to Work on Practice Knowledge

Based on an understanding that a practice story represents a practitioner‟s „knot of relevance‟ for

an area of concern in their practice, and compiled from the data of informal and in-practice case

study, a compulsory and introductory research unit of the curriculum of an Australian

University‟s Masters of Education can be read to be constructed around the writing up,

examination, and sharing of that story, and how it is developed by further investigation, with

others. The unit, entitled „Introduction to Research and Inquiry‟, is explicitly constructed around



the concept of the narrative as the stimulus for, and the process of reporting, practice-relevant

research.

The course is conducted over 12 weeks, and, in Spring 2007, involved:

face-to-face sessions with the Subject Lecturer,

6 workshops on specific aspects of the research process,

access to selected resources in digital form,

10 online activities designed to pace and step the student through the various processes of

research and working towards a research report,

access to 4 Learning Development academic skills and language support modules on

weeks 2, 5, 7 and 9

four assessment tasks, where one, the „hurdle‟, relates to evidence from the online

activities that the various steps have been conducted, and

provision for individual consultations with the Lecturer and/or Learning Development

staff offering specific learning development support for the process

From the fuller course documentation appended, I extract the following distinctive features:

Table 1: Distinctive Features of EDGZ921 Component Distinctive Features

In the Outline: It will also provide the tools to conduct a small self-study research

project.

What constitutes „good‟ or „useful‟ research for practitioners?

How can stories be used as a reporting tool for a self-study? and why?

In the

Objectives:

Find and frame a worthwhile research problem

Building on an identified „problem‟ conduct a small self-study and

produce a narrative style report of this self-study

The Problem

Posing Vignette

(PPV)

you need to reflect on your past or current practice focusing on a

particular event that troubled you or an area of your professional

learning that you would like to explore through an inquiry process

In the Final

Report Criteria

final assessment piece – a personal narrative around a „problem‟ or

„issue‟ significant to you in your workplace

The Critical

Dialogue and

Reflections

Report

ask a critical friend to read their personal narrative and then they should

engage in a reflexive dialogue with them about the problem and how

they went about researching and responding to the problem through

their self-study

At the first week session students are instructed to commence a research journal, to encourage

and allow them to capture their own thoughts and processes as the course work unfolds. In the

final report, the use of personal journal data, and its integration with findings from the literature



and from the analysis of primary data from interviewing at least one other practitioner, is a key

element of the assessment.

During the online activities, the students are firstly invited to introduce themselves and indicate

some of their study purpose and interests. Then they are involved in posting responses to

structured exercises, dealing with developing awareness about the literature of research, ethical

issues in research, data collection and data analysis, and constructing a quality research report.

The first major assessment task is the submission of a narrative about practice, designated as the

Problem Posing Vignette. An example vignette is provided, and is drafted in the personal voice.

For some this represents a surprise – this is not „research‟ as they expected it. In providing

formative feedback to the students from the narrative draft, and especially for the focus questions

presented at the end, I, as marker, recommend that at least one question be phrased in the

personal form, one example of which is „How can I …?‟ (Whitehead, 1989).

The narrative draft is required to be posted to the website for exposure to the class as a whole.

Each student is required to provide peer feedback to at least two other students, forcing both their

engagement in others‟ PPV and study area, and involving them in hearing what peers, as well as

the marker, have to say about what they shared in their PPV. The peer feedback usually conveys

„connections being made‟ between the writer and their story, and the reader and their (other) own

practice stories repertoire, and sometimes raise questions, or offer suggestions, other ideas or

useful resources. The marker‟s feedback focuses on assessment related to the form of the

narrative – the thick and rich description, the progress from introduction to focus questions, the

nature of focus questions – and then formative feedback about the form and „researchability‟ of

the focus questions within the course time frame, how the student might manage the more

extensive practice question, how the literature might assist, how the question/s might change and

develop as the inquiry proceeds, what tools might help the final, longer report display the

argument in the story.

The task of writing up practice experience, as a story, and posting to share, and then offering

critical friend/ peer feedback to other participants, who are undertaking the same task, but where

each has their own particular story to tell, is the first stage in opening up practice experience to

the scrutiny of other practitioners.



By the second week, the students are beginning to engage with research literature and its

reporting. They will be starting to draft their PPV story and identifying the area of practice where

their focus question arises, and will be beginning to collect relevant research reports within that

area of practice.

During this phase, of being open to the inputs from the literature, first to find literature that does

deal with the same area exposed in the PPV narrative, and then to recognise in the literature that

which is new and pertinent to the questions raised by the narrative PPV, opens the narrative to

further examination. In some cases these stimuli start to trigger off further relevant practice

experience stories, sometimes captured in their research journal notes.

From the gaps identified in the PPV and any other reflections on practice and the material arising

in the literature, more questions about practice may develop for the professional. Since the focus

of the next step is preparation to collect first hand data from interviews with another (usually an

experienced practitioner, but sometimes students or clients) some students find that some of the

questions that develop here can be taken into the interview.

Having collected the first hand interview data, as well as personal journal data, the next steps

involve data analysis and writing up of the final report.

After submitting the final report for assessment the student is asked to contact someone to act as a

„critical friend‟, to have them read the final report, and collect the responses of a critical dialogue

about the report, and then report and reflect on this exchange.

So what happens for the students as they participate in this unit of study? As one student reported, in the critical dialogue report:

Now that I‟ve done the narrative I couldn‟t be more pleased about what I‟ve learnt, I

really didn‟t expect to get that much out of it.

…

[Speaking about the experience of the interviewee/informant in the study, who was also

encouraged to write and tell the story of their work experience which was being examined.]

That was such a generous thing for her to do, that wasn‟t a good time for her but putting it

down on paper gave us both something pretty special. She has rung me twice to say how

good it was for her to do that. The „story‟ was actually much longer, so she was really able

to tell me what it was like for her and I learnt so much from her experience.

…

I am very excited about the outcomes of the story. I really wasn‟t expecting it, I wasn‟t

expecting to actually have some real usable work, this has really informed my work.

…



I found it really difficult to talk in the first person; I kept switching back to academic report.

I was trying to think about who would be reading it. I found it really hard to find a balance

between academic and chatty but I think I may have gone a bit too far down the chatty lane.

Having said that both Project Managers really got a lot out of reading it, they are both very

excited about the narrative and are keen for me to take it further.

…

T‟s [critical friend] work is generally focused on quantitative research so I was keen to get

her thoughts on what is clearly a qualitative process. I thought she may not have taken it as

seriously because it was narrative. However as I listened to her reflections on using this as a

base for a proposal, how much she enjoyed M‟s story and the technology section I realized

that she had taken it seriously. It was this honesty I had been relying on in her response from

the start.

…

I came away feeling like I had done something worthwhile here, that there was real value in

what I had done for myself and perhaps for the organization.

Extracts from one Student‟s Critical Dialogue Report, Spring 2007, reproduced with

permission; my emphases

Others‟ critical dialogue reports registered similar appreciation of the learning derived from the

process. Some highlighted the value of the reflective journal work, some highlighted learning

from and appreciation of the critical dialogue, and especially when these aspects were a new

experience for them. The value of being exposed to different perspectives, from the literature,

from the interviewee, from the critical friend, was acknowledged by some. Others recognised

new ideas coming from the different perspectives, from the interchange with the critical friend, or

from the aftermath of all these engagements. A number acknowledged the personally confronting

nature of the self-study, followed by a growing appreciation of its power for them in considering

their practice: positives and negatives; gaining a more objective view of their practice; realising

their commitment to teaching in a different way – „passion‟, „vocation‟. Having some practices

confirmed, either from the literature, the interviewee, or the critical friend, was an important

confidence builder for some. Some reported the challenge of their practice, either from the

literature, the interviewee, or the critical friend, to be stimulating and producing positive results,

even though generating some discomfort in the first instance. A number reported on their

readers‟ appreciating the „readability‟ of the narrative form.

In my own analysis, as I prepared for an earlier collaborative study of outcomes of the course and

possible impacts of inputs, I checked on „voice‟: comparing voice in the PPV with the Final

Report, and any relationship with quality of final report, and learning from the whole process. I

summarized my findings as follows:



Table 2: Summary Analysis of Inputs and Outcomes for EDGZ921 Spring 2007

Class group 38; 23-25 were from obvious NESB cultures

Problem Posing

Vignette

All were able to recount narrative in personal “I” terms

Half were able to express at least one focus question in “I” terms

PPV to Final

Report

8 made the shift from not having focus question in an “I” form

to self-study

10 stayed with the “I” in the focus question into a report that

included material about self-awareness, role of self in practice,

and identified changes for self that would improve their practice,

while 9 limited the final reporting to the third person

practical-technical level

There is what I would call a higher end „distortion‟ in the marks:

most score High D or D. This is a measure of the student

engagement in the practice-relevant question – it is in their

professional interests to do the best they can, given their

circumstantial constraints, on the question that is their practice

concern.

Critical Dialogue

Report

All involved additional engagement with practice issue

15 involved some engagement with the narrative approach with

the critical friend, some challenge, some appreciation

From this, I judge that what represents a significant problem, for my ongoing practice as marker,

is that just under half the students, who were able to express one of their focus questions in “I”

terms, were not able to progress the rest of the way into reporting findings related to self-study in

their final report. How do I help these students? Further, in starting out on this inquiry I have

two current working hypotheses: (1) It may be that 'voice' could flag which theoretical framework

one is working in ('theory-in-use' of Argyris & Schon, 1996); and (2) to what extent does the

voice in literature model and shift the voice of the researcher in EDGZ921 so that they are

seduced to the practical-technical focus delivered in the third person voice?

How does opening our stories to external testing help us understand more of what we are doing and provide leverage for ideas for change that might develop our practice?

As I understand it, the process of opening our stories to external testing (a significant step in

research process, designated as „peer review‟), whether those stories have been prompted by

another‟s story, or forced on us by the demands of practice, involves the following steps: firstly,

we deploy our own rigor in the story construction (for oral or written presentation); secondly, we

expose our constructed story to the rigor tests of peers: listeners and/or literature and/or readers;

thirdly, the stimulation of others‟ stories (literature and/or peer practitioners), especially when



related to our own, involves us in listening to those stories with our evaluative rigor and when the

story passes our evaluative tests and presents ideas that are new to us, these ideas become

available for consideration for use in our own practice to go beyond where we might be stuck in

our own practice.

What is involved in the deployment of our own rigor in the story construction? When I have a story to tell the process of construction involves the answering of the questions

What are the facts? (data collection), What are the relevant facts? (data analysis, data selection –

with „relevance‟ being related to the question posed and seeking an answer), How do I understand

them to construct „coherence‟?, and is followed by the exercise of the disciplines of telling it or

writing it out, which, more often than not, need to be applied by working with these questions in

an iterative way.

What is involved in the exposure of a constructed story to the rigor tests of peers? When I am a listener to another‟s story I apply the following evaluative criteria which are

directed to the purpose of seeking relevant practice applications: Do these facts correspond to my

experience of practice?; Do I have other relevant facts that support or appear to contest this

construction?; How do I understand my facts to construct a coherent story for myself?; In what

way does my story represent an alternative perspective to that of the other party/ies?; When their

story corresponds enough to the facts of my story, and has a coherence from a different

perspective, does that different perspective help me understand my story more fully, and/or

suggest other actions I could take in a similar situation next time it occurs?

What happens next depends on the teller and the listener, and there are times when a practitioner

operates as both (especially when engaging with the research literature on one‟s own, or

conversing with oneself in a reflective journal). When the telling of a story becomes a

communicative event for another, and stimulates a reciprocal sharing of a practice story, the

participants to the exchange can begin to engage in mutual and collaborative research, where a

teller‟s and a listener‟s stories come under both individual and joint evaluation, and where the

findings of those evaluations may become shared. The interactive pair start to build a collection

of cases of instances which take them beyond the one-off instance to allow them to build

something more generalisable. When the telling of a story leads rather to the raising of

questions, to explore more of the contextual detail of the case instance, more is gathered about the



complexity of the case under consideration, and of the reasoning that is involved in the

construction of coherence. This might be part of an „open‟ contestation of the case, or if a second

party finds there is sufficient correspondence of relevant factual detail but at least one different

way of understanding that, then the sharing of the alternative story construction can become a

resource for considering the relative merits of the different perspectives and the reasoning

thinking behind the different perspectives.

Seeing intimations of this in the EDGZ921 program and student responses and learning

So what is my story? How do I develop coherence from these observations? My explanation,

drawing, as it does, on my own understanding of personal experience, points to how EDGZ921

may well be working for its students.

The practice story helps identify a practice concern, in which the practitioner is currently engaged

and where they need to do some work to get a useful answer to allow them to progress their

practice. This is what the PPV does in EDGZ921. Because it is the student‟s own practice

concern there is some purpose, and pay-off, in working on it (motivation/ engagement in the

research learning that is needed). The student‟s own practice concern then drives them into

practice-relevant inquiry/research.

Opening the story to examination, its outcomes (the understanding and the perspectival basis of

that understanding) can be challenged for confirmation or correction, and its processes (the

natural research method used) can be checked for quality. The checking of the process, and

providing formative feedback about this, is what the marker is involved in doing to the Final

Report in EDGZ921. The student's interaction with the literature is a step in helping the student

be more self-reliant in the area of checking outcomes and how they are storied, against field

knowledge. The student's tapping of the empirical (primary data, rather than the literature's

reporting of someone else's research) from an interview, is another step that helps them think

again about their understanding, their incomplete story, and how to start to build a more complete

story, the transformed understanding that is represented in the Final Report.

Having constructed a Final Report, the student is obliged to share that report with a Critical

Friend, and engage in a Critical Dialogue and report the outcome. This round operates as another



learning event. The confidence of personal knowledge construction, as conveyed in the Final

Report, informs the student-practitioner in the ensuing conversation, often with another

experienced practitioner. Interaction with the critical friend may mobilise more field knowledge

that was not in the report, because of report construction constraints. Interaction with the critical

friend sometimes involves consideration of the process of research, for this practice instance,

contesting and perhaps consolidating the relevance of the tried approach.

The task in EDGZ921 is opening up the practitioner's story to this kind of examination, and by

the practitioner themselves, operating as a researcher, within the accepted processes of 'research',

as the academy understands it. Because it is the practitioner's story, the examination is, by

definition, an aspect of self-study (own story study). The extent to which the practitioner is able

to be self-aware about their role in the story, and to focus on their own actions, emotions and

cognitions, determines which level of, and how much more, self-study arises in the EDGZ921

exercise.

It is my understanding, from other practice engagement (Allen, 2005), that the highest reflexive

level of self-study will occur when the researcher is able to examine the story from some broader

narrative theoretical perspective that allows them to see how much of current socio-cultural

assumptions are being taken for granted in their own thinking. This level of (social) critical

analysis is well beyond the novice, operating in the tight time frame that is a one semester study,

in my view. It is a start, however, to examine some of the unexamined rules-of-thumb, natural

ways they approach teaching say, and difficulties and dilemmas that arise because such rules-of-

thumb do not always, invariably, work.

This is not to say that the practice story, and its examination, by these processes, is not free from

some of the risky and sloppy thinking that is used in the pressure of practice constraints:

representativeness bias, availability bias, hindsight bias, confirmation bias, self-serving bias

(Gittins, 2007 drawing on David Myers Intuition, Yale UP, 2002). It is, however, an introduction

to research and inquiry, and by having the company of peers, to help the student spell out their

practice, by listening to, or reading their story, and then by engaging in adbuctive reasoning and

resultant questioning to clarify data and test alternative explanatory thinking, is a good beginning

to practice research and improved practice and sometimes will take the practitioner further into an

understanding of the nature and processes of research itself, as a practice.



Conclusion

I have shared how I understand the practice story to be an expression of a practitioner‟s case

study, albeit an informal study in the first instance, and how an understanding of how practice

knowledge is developed suggests that firstly sharing, and then working with such stories, can

generate more solidly founded practice knowledge than is usually credited to the anecdote.

I have then looked closely at a unit of a masters course work which can be considered to be an

example of putting these concepts into practice, showing how a research task, explicitly

constructed around the concept of the narrative as the stimulus for, and the process of reporting,

practice-relevant research, produces quality results for the participating practitioners.

From this I draw the following principles which might guide other professional development

activities which are seeking to deliver on improved professional practice: (1) Honour the

participants‟ practice stories as sources of real data, and knots of relevance, or communicable

informal research findings; (2) Provide an environment, time and space, where such practice

studies are shared among peers; (3) Examine the shared practice stories for practice knowledge –

question the practitioner understanding that is being applied to deliver coherence; (4) Tap peer

experience for alternative perspectives to those conveyed in the practice story.

Bibliography

Allen, D. (2005). Contributing to Learning to Change: Developing an action learning peer

support group of professionals to investigate ways of improving their own professional

practice. Unpublished M.Ed.(Hons), University of Wollongong, Wollongong. http://www.library.uow.edu.au/adt-NWU/public/adt-NWU20050901.105532/index.html

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organisational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice.

Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Baskett, H. K. M., & Marsick, V. (Eds.). (1992). Professionals' Ways of Knowing: New Findings

on How to Improve Professional Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature. New York: EP Dutton.

Bateson, G., & Bateson, M. C. (1987). Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred.

New York: Macmillan.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research

( rev ed ed.). (Melb.): Deakin Univ Pr.

Farmer, J., J. A., Buckmaster, A., & Le Grand, B. (1992). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Implications

for Continuing Professional Education. In H. K. Morris Baskett & V. Marsick (Eds.),

Professionals' Ways of Knowing: New Findings on How to Improve Professional

Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gittins, R. (2007). Use your head to look before you leap to a conclusion. Sydney Morning

Herald. Sydney, NSW: Fairfax

http://www.library.uow.edu.au/adt-NWU/public/adt-NWU20050901.105532/index.html



Goff, S. (2002). Participatory Research. Sydney, NSW: Cultureshift.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The Action Research Planner ( 3rd ed.). (Melb): Deakin

Univ Pr.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory Action Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y.

Lincoln (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Sage.

LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J.

Loughran & M. L. Hamilton & V. K. LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International

Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp. 817-870).

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. (2004). International Handbook

of Self-Study of Teacher and Teacher Education Practices. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and

Practice. London: Sage.

Riessman, C. K. (2002). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.),

Handbook of Interview Research (pp. pp. 695-710). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

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

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

Schon, D. A. (Ed.). (1991). The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on educational practice.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Schon, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 26-29.

Whitehead, A. J. (1989). Creating a Living Educational Theory from questions of the kind 'How

do I improve my practice?'. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41-52.



Appendix: Course Documentation for EDGZ921 Introduction to Research and Inquiry Outline:

The subject examines the nature of inquiry specifically in education and related areas. The subject

will assist students in critically appraising research in academic contexts, in public contexts such

as government reports, and popular contexts such as media and to develop a short literature

review. It will also provide the tools to conduct a small self-study research project.

Specifically the subject will address questions such as: What is the purpose of research? Why

conduct research and inquiry? How do we engage in conducting research? What constitutes

„good‟ or „useful‟ research for practitioners? What are the ethical implications of conducting

and reporting on research? How can stories be used as a reporting tool for a self-study? and

why? How can we evaluate quality research?

EDGZ921 Subject Guide, 2007 my emphases

Objectives:

On successful completion of this subject, a student will be able to:

• Discuss the purpose and nature of research and classroom inquiry

• Access and critically evaluate research as written up in academic, public and popular contexts

• Understand the role of published literature in supporting research and have conducted a small

literature review in their area of interest

• Find and frame a worthwhile research problem

• Building on an identified „problem‟ conduct a small self-study and produce a narrative

style report of this self-study

• Demonstrate an understanding of the ethical implications of conducting and reporting on

research

EDGZ921 Subject Guide, 2007 my emphases

„Problem Posing Vignette‟. The following task outline is given

Through the problem-posing vignette (PPV) you need to reflect on your past or current

practice focusing on a particular event that troubled you or an area of your professional

learning that you would like to explore through an inquiry process. These events can include

your practice AND issues to do with the curriculum, planning, assessment, development of

materials with groups of children, families, or colleagues or they may be professional issues to do

with management, leadership or training in broader settings. These Problem-Posing Vignettes

need to include thick and rich descriptions of the setting, those involved and the problem or issue

you would like to address. The Problem-Posing Vignette must end with Focus Questions (2-3)

that directs your audience to your role and the issue or problem that you are wishing to explore.

These Problem-Posing Vignettes will play a significant part of the curriculum and assessment of

this course and you will be expected to share them with your lecturer and your peers (in the

appendix is an example of vignette to help guide you).

EDGZ921 Subject Guide, 2007, my emphasis

The guidelines for the Final Report include:

Assessment Task 2 is composed of a number of data collection activities that will be guided

throughout the workshop activities. These include- the problem posing vignette, your own

personal journal writing, literature relevant to your topic area and the content from an interview

with a critical friend. This data will then be analysed and used to develop the final assessment

piece – a personal narrative around a ‘problem’ or ‘issue’ significant to you in your workplace.

The “Personal Narrative” should be 4000 words and written in the first person. Examples of

teachers stories included in the readings for this subject are useful tools for guiding how your

story should be constructed. The “Personal narrative” should begin with your problem-posing

vignette and the focus questions you have identified to explore as task 1 and build though your



own reflective investigations, talking and sharing with others, reading the literature and by

conducting one interview with a critical friend.

The four key elements of data collection that will inform the narrative include:

1. The Problem-Posing Vignette

The problem posing vignette will be assessed in week 4 as task 1 and will form the basis for

your introduction to your story – that is providing the background, the context and the

research questions. The PPV can be modified form its original form to suit the possible

changing and evolving research study.

2. Keep a professional journal

You should keep a professional journal throughout the semester where you write up any

instances/conversations arose that help you reflect or be more informed about your „problem‟.

You can also discuss your „problem‟ with others and keep notes on these discussions. You

should conduct a short literature review around your area of focus for your self-study and

include any notes and responses to the literature in your journal. The journal will become one

of the major sources for the personal narrative. In the appendix are some notes on journal

writing for your own reference. Further information will be provided throughout the subject.

(NB: The journal wont be submitted for assessment but extracts from the journal should be

included in the final assessment piece that will be handed into the lecturer, these extracts

should be formally cited so if needed evidence of their authenticity will be available).

3. Literature review that includes at least 6 relevant articles to your self-study that you

have located through a literature search.

The literature review should be conducted around your area of study and similar projects and

findings include informing your practice and your reflections on your own research. Quotes

from each of the significant articles should be used to compare similarities or differences in

your own study and those of studies done previously. Literature should be formally cited in

the text and a reference list should be included at the end of the personal narrative.

4. Interview with a significant person

Someone who is significant to your study (ie. work colleague, student, parent, educational

adviser, academic, health worker) should be interviewed with extracts from their interview

being included in your personal narrative.



The criteria for assessing the Final Report are as follows:

Criteria

Quality of Evidence (30%)

There is clear evidence of use of the personal journal to support the narrative

At least 6 pieces of research literature were formally cited to support and enhance the

development of the key ideas/themes of the personal narrative

An interview was conducted with a significant person with extracts from the interview

supporting the narrative – the transcript and interview schedule are included as appendix

items

Quality of Study Design (20%)

There is evidence that a relevant problem/topic, research question and research plan have

been designed and were utilised to guide the self-study

Quality of Narrative (50%)

The narrative is clear, logical and articulate allowing for the reader to comprehend the

learning, dilemmas, tensions and actions that came about during and as a consequence of the

self-study process (how and why) (20%)

The narrative is reflective and insightful and concludes by providing evidence of self-learning

either through further recommendations for practice, lessons learnt or questions for further

research/exploration (20%)

The narrative is grammatically correct and includes formal in-text citations and referencing

and a reference list. (10%)

General Comments:

EDGZ921 Subject Guide, 2007, bold italics my emphasis

Critical Dialogue and Reflections Report

Students should ask a critical friend to read their personal narrative and then they should engage

in a reflexive dialogue with them about the problem and how they went about researching and

responding to the problem through their self-study. A small report of this dialogue should then be

submitted. The report should include:

1. Beginning paragraph setting the scene, introducing the critical friend, the activity and the

setting for the dialogue

2. Transcription of key aspects of the dialogue thematically organised

3. Short reflective response to the dialogue.

EDGZ921 Subject Guide, 2007, my emphasis



PRESENTATION:

narrative inquiry conf paper_the story and working on practice knowledge

Documents