This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 21 October 2014, At: 19:28Publisher: 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

The lack of action research:1 the case forHong KongWai Shing Li a , Wai Ming Yu a , Tak Shing Lam a & Ping Kwan Fok aa Hong Kong Institute of Education , Tai Po, Hong KongPublished online: 20 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: Wai Shing Li , Wai Ming Yu , Tak Shing Lam & Ping Kwan Fok (1999) Thelack of action research:1 the case for Hong Kong, Educational Action Research, 7:1, 33-50, DOI:10.1080/09650799900200079

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650799900200079

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

The Lack of Action Research:[1] the case for Hong Kong

WAI SHING LI, WAI MING YU, TAK SHING LAM & PING KWAN FOKHong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, Hong Kong

ABSTRACT Action research facilitates professional development (Stenhouse,1975). Facilitating teachers to learn from their own experience and improve theirpractice by action research is an important means to teacher empowerment andautonomy (Ebbutt & Elliott, 1985; McKernan, 1991). The idea of action research,however, has never been well-received in Hong Kong (Kwan, 1993), nor is theidea explicitly supported as a sound practice for practitioners in the local contextby officials and administrators until very recently (Board of Education, 1997).The article tries to construct a comprehensive explanation for the lack of actionresearch in Hong Kong, identifying and explaining the contributing factors.These negative elements are interrelated and operate ecologically in theeducation system. The authors conceive four levels of barrier, namely, policy,system, professional and individual, with nine major types of possiblerestrictions. These possible restrictions include, for example, the legacy ofcolonial administration (Morris & Marsh, 1992), oriental cultural factors (Cheng,1990; Bond, 1991) and epistemological restrictions (Kincheloe, 1991). It isargued that if the lack of action research is properly understood, relevant andgenuine support can be given to practitioners to carry out action research andschool-based reforms.

Action research should not be imposed onto schools and teachers asa top-down policy .... Most teachers are still at the thought level anddo not really commit to action. But commitment to Action Researchdepends very much on the teacher’s attitude and ability to changeand on self-initiation ... (T.Y.L. Kwan, 1993)

Introduction

We heard some good news but not enough.

In the revised edition of the Report on Review of 9-year Compulsory Education(Board of Education, 1997), schools, teachers and tertiary institutions areencouraged to engage collaborative action research for school-based problemsolving and reform:

In order to better understand the root of problems and issues in ourschools and in the education system, to find out solutions to these

ACTION RESEARCH AND HONG KONG

33

Educational Action Research, Volume 7, No. 1, 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

problems and to engage in on-going innovation and improvements,more resources should be provided to support tertiary institutionsand schools in conducting research projects on educational policies,problems, issues and needs in school. Co-ordination or co-operationbetween schools and tertiary institutions should be promoted incarrying out more school-based research studies on differentaspects. (Board of Education, 1997, 10.19, p. 123)

While teachers and action-researchers are wondering how therecommendation may be implemented, they welcome this pronouncement.

The idea of conducting research to facilitate policy-making and profes-sional development was first suggested when a panel of visitors wasinvited by the Secretary of Education to undertake an overall review ofthe education system of Hong Kong (Llewellyn et al, 1982). Five yearslater, the idea was adopted in the School-based Curriculum ResearchProject Scheme (Curriculum Development Council, 1987). However,the operational details of the Scheme were to satisfy bureaucraticconcerns rather than to initiate practical inquiry and teacher empower-ment (Morris, 1990; McClelland, 1991). The scheme failed. A decadelater after the launching of the school-based project, the Governmentrecommended the idea of school-based research again (Board ofEducation, 1997). The school was conceived as the centre of inquiry,and any quality educational practice and curriculum developmentdepends on an open reflective attitude by all teachers. We consider therecommendation is more explicit but details of the implementationremain to be seen. We support the recommendation with other teachereducators’ (see e.g. Schaeffer [1967] and Connelly & Ben-Peretz[1980]) that at the heart of school change is the teacher’s inquiringmind. It is, however, a paradox that the recommendations wereadvanced from an education system where teachers have little say andparticipation in the curriculum decision making process (Llewellyn etal, 1982; Morris, 1990, 1996a). The aim of the article is to construct a comprehensive explanation ofthe lack of action research and school-based reforms in Hong Kong.The factors involved will be considered at four levels, namely thepolicy-making level, school level, professional level, and personallevel. The factors are working dynamically and ecologically at eachlevel, as well as in the whole education system. The tone of the paperis pessimistic. Yet an understanding of these negative elements, we

WAI SHING LI ET AL

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

believe, is the first step that leads to the possible alleviation of theproblem.

The Policy-making Level

Historical Antecedents

Two important historical features stand out. One is the legacy of the colonialgovernment and the other is the political propaganda which enabled thegovernment to have direct control of schooling in Hong Kong.

The establishment and development of the educational system isinseparable from the general administration policy of the Colony atlarge. According to Morris & Marsh’s (1992) analysis, much of thehighly bureaucratic, top-down approach can be attributed to thecolonial pattern of decision-making of the government (p. 253). It istypical of an executive-led administration in which the Governor hashighest decision-making authority. The Department of Education isresponsible for the implementation of policy on education matters(Tam, 1997). The political uproar that extended from the 1940s to the1950s led the colonial government to consider plans to thwart plotswhich made use of schools as centers for ‘political propaganda’. Thecolonial government imposed stringent regulations to ensure the statusquo remained unchanged (Morris & Sweeting, 1991). For instance,regulations on the control of the content of school subjects andtextbooks read like this:

No instruction may be given by any school except in accordancewith a syllabus approved by the Director [of Education]. (EducationDepartment, 1971, p. 30, 92[1])

No person shall use any document for instruction in a class in anyschool unless particulars of the title, author and publisher of thedocument and such other particulars of the document as the Director

[of Education] may require have been furnish to the Director not lessthan 14 days previously. (Education Department, 1971, p. 30, 92[6])

Apparently, these regulations were effective in controlling classroominstruction but at the expense of blocking curriculum innovation. A closescrutiny of other regulatory policies reinforces the view that Hong Kongexperienced top-down decision-making. As a result, practitioners wereconditioned to a teacher-centered teaching approach as well as an emphasison content learning in schools (Morris, 1985a; Biggs, 1996). The implicitmessage of the Education Department was that curriculum development andimplementation is unproblematic and unilateral. Teacher participation was

ACTION RESEARCH AND HONG KONG

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

unwelcome and avoided at all costs. In this context, there is no hope forclassroom-based innovations.

Geographical Consideration

It is often too easy to ignore that the small size of the Colony as a contributingfactor to the centralised administration. With hindsight, we must note that‘the lines of delivery between central bureaucracy and the schools are veryshort’, and thus ‘facilitates a high degree of direct central control’ (Morris,1990, p. 26). There have been no intervening authorities to mediate betweenschools and the central government. Even today, the intent of rigorousconsultation in the policy decision-making levels is greeted with scepticism bysome scholars (e.g. Morris, 1996a). Thus, the direct top-down control by theEducation Department is taken for granted, leaving little room for genuineconsultation, mediation and negotiation, and no room for school-basedactions.

The Cultural Heritage

Administration always occurs in a cultural context. One distinct feature of theChinese community is conformity and hierarchy. Individuals are expected toadapt themselves to the community to which they belong (Cheng, 1990,1995). One of the sources of the conforming system, argues Sweeting (1983),is paternalism. Sweeting (1990) regards paternalism as one of the six aspectsof Hong Kong’s social environment significant to the educational enterprise:

Paternalism has assumed many forms in Hong Kong. More recently,there has been a conjunction of paternalistic styles: ConfucianisticPaternalism which recognizes obligations to inferiors and the dutiesof the ‘noble’ or ‘superior’ man, Colonialist Paternalism of the ‘WhiteMan’s Burden’-type, Bureaucratic Paternalism of the‘we-know-what’s-best-for-them’ variety, and has manifested itself inrelation to education in Hong Kong. On occasions, several or all ofthem have coalesced to enable or, via patronizing attitudes, todisable educational change. (Sweeting, 1990, p. 69)

The cultural heritage associated with paternalism has led to a cluster ofphenomena considered counter-productive to professional development andschool reforms. These include:

x professional-bureaucratic dichotomy in the educational sector;x the ‘we (administrators)-know-what’s-best-for-them (teachers)’ attitude; andx functional foremanship.

Professional-bureaucratic dichotomy. By professional-bureaucratic dichotomy,we refer to the operation of the educational bureaucracy without regards toprofessional discretion in curriculum matters and innovation (Lichtenstein etal, 1992). The bureaucratic establishment has impeded and constrainedteachers’ effectiveness and their participation in decision-making for

WAI SHING LI ET AL

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

curriculum development. The phenomenon is so evident that the visitingpanel who came to review the Hong Kong education system put it bluntly the‘“we-they” attitude between schools and the Education Department hasestablished ... here is in short a noticeable lack of mutual trust andunderstanding [among schools and teachers]’ (Llewellyn et al, 1982, pp.15-16). One of the most recent examples of this kind is the prolonged disputebetween professionals and officials on issues of curriculum innovationassociated with the Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC)[2] in schools.Practitioners, although in agreement with the rationale behind TOC, are notconvinced that the bureaucratic-driven plan of implementation isprofessionally sound and beneficial to the learners (Morris, 1996b). At theheart of the conflict is bureaucratic control versus professional expertise andautonomy over curriculum implementation (Wong, 1994).

‘We-know-what’s-best-for-them’ Attitude. Teachers feel that officials are toodominant in administering educational matters. Practitioner expertise andexperience is disregarded. If there is anything which needs improvement,outside help is generally sought; insiders’ views are rarely heard, and notrespected. Change is hardly a result of the recommendations of insiders whoknow the local context well. The consequence of such a practice is theover-administration of the education system which is ‘under-planned in termsof strategic goals and the know-how to attain them’ (Llewellyn et al, 1982, p.16). This kind of ‘we-know-what’s-best-for-them’ attitude disappointspractitioners. It also restricts teachers’ ability to act according to their ownprofessional notions of best practice.

Functional Foremanship. The term ‘functional foremanship’ refers to theperceived necessity of supervising workers to ensure a standardised methodof operation. The approach is often associated with Frederick Taylor whoadvocated a strict division of labour and total management control over thelabour process (Kincheloe, 1991). The Advisory Inspectorate, directlyaccountable to the Education Department, works as the ‘foreman’. Theestablishment of it ‘is intended as the main agency for initiating andsupporting the implementation of curricular changes’ (Morris, 1985b, p. 19).Any deviation from the plan will be identified by regular visits of theinspectors. Proper action will be taken if it is deemed necessary by thedepartment. There exists a sense of distrust between the EducationDepartment and the practitioners. Any change made by the latter areregarded negatively or with great scepticism by the departmental officials.

Power sharing and political pluralism might be good ideas but they arenot often practised in the school system. The establishment of theEducation Commission [3] (EC) is sufficient to show that the democ-ratisation of policymaking has received ‘lip-service’. The EC wasestablished as a response to a recommendation made by the VisitingPanel that the education system is ‘over-administered’ (Llewellyn et al,1982). The government wanted to extend participation in the processof policy making by various sectors of the community. The truth is that

ACTION RESEARCH AND HONG KONG

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

EC has not fulfilled its goal and remains a means of maintainingcontrol of the policy-making process (Morris, 1996a, pp. 334-335).The education system remains centralised and administratively-driven.Even after the hand-over, it has not changed much. The SpecialAdministrative Region has adopted the same system of consultativeautocracy with the Chief Executive as de jure the sole decision-makingauthority (Cheng, 1997, p. 67).

The School System Level

School Administration

Successful implementation of school reform and curricular innovation isdependent on the administrator’s ability to help practitioners to change anddevelop new understandings and skills. Much effort and leadership arerequired to generate a ‘culture’ of quality schooling (Day et al, 1987; Fullan,1991, 1993).

In Hong Kong, research has shown that school principals hold uniqueperceptions and attitudes, which are not conducive to professionaldevelopment and quality schooling. Walker & Cheng (1996) find thatHong Kong school administrators do not regard professional develop-ment as significant as technical support in school improvement andeffective teaching. The most important assistance, to these principals,is ‘hardware’ support such as photo-copying machines and the reduc-tion of teacher–pupil ratios. In-service retraining is perceived as thebest way to equip teachers for change and individual development.These beliefs, we perceive, tend to devalue professional developmentand embarrass the efforts of teacher self-empowerment through reflec-tion and personal theorising. Walker & Cheng continue to commentthat ‘By suggesting increased technical support as most important forimprovement, the administrators may be ignoring substantial researchwhich places professional development firmly as the key to schoolimprovement’ (Walker & Cheng, 1996, p. 207). Leaders who arecommitted and have vision tend to conceive good school policy asmore dependent on teachers’ self-improvement (Ng & Cheng, 1993;Chan & Cheng, 1993). However, it is upsetting to find that school administrators in HongKong are not all strong instructional leaders (Chan & Cheng, 1993).These administrators do not encourage power sharing and pluralisticparticipation in schools. Thus, Hong Kong teachers are rarely involved

WAI SHING LI ET AL

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

in constructing their own school policy and professional development.Eventually, a vicious circle emerges: professional development canhardly be grounded and flourish if teachers are not involved in schooldecision-making processes while school improvement planning mightwell be groundless without the active participation of teachersthemselves. The standardisation of teaching required by weak instruc-tional leaders is a common demand in the classroom of Hong Kong.

Standardising Teaching

School administrators and principals who are not competent in performingduties associated with strong instructional leadership are likely to follow a‘production ideology’; a practice similar to ‘functional foremanship’. It ischaracterised by centralised control and a narrow job definition orspecification of the teaching duties of the staff of a school (House, 1974,pp. 172-173). These leaders believe there is one best way of performingeffective teaching. By standardising teaching, teacher supervision andmonitoring are readily easily implemented. In a similar vein, it is believed thatteacher incompetence can be identified with ease (Kincheloe, 1991). Not onlyis that belief naïve, but also it is problematic. Good teaching has many formsand is not solely an individual endeavour. The revival of ‘Taylorism’ in theprofessional workplace also frustrates the teachers to teach creatively.‘Taylorism’ ignores the idiosyncrasies of reflective practice and criticalunderstanding in the site-based dynamics of individual classrooms.

Pressure from the Competitive Classroom

The standardisation of teaching or the production ideology adopted by schoolprincipals is not attributed to the legacy of colonial government or toTaylorism alone. They are also rooted in the flourishing elitist educationsystem to which both factors may be related since the colonial governmentfeared mass education and Taylorism assumes a controller of work.

The dominant characteristic of the school curricular in both primaryand secondary schools are essentially academic and examination orien-tated. Public examinations became the most powerful mechanism forallocating children to different schools at different levels of educationin a competitive and hierarchical system of schooling (Morris &Marsh, 1992; Cheng, 1997). Rote learning as a means of achievingacademic excellence is all is that required. The status of a school ishighly related to the success of its students in public examinations(Llewellyn et al, 1982). As a result, three major problems arise:x an extensive use of textbooks [4] (Morris & Marsh, 1992);

ACTION RESEARCH AND HONG KONG

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

x public examinations dominate what is taught in schools at all levels (i.e. the‘backwash’ effect) (Morris, 1985a; Biggs, 1996); and

x public examinations dominate actual teaching practices and encourage rotelearning for assessment (Morris, 1985a).

These policies and practices make curriculum innovation and creativeteaching difficult. The pressures of examinations both implicitly and explicitlydirect the teaching behaviour of teachers. Being reflective and critical ofschooling is a price too high to pay. At the same time, the teachers’ imageremains at a low, or technical, level. Ultimately, the most difficult part ofcurriculum change is to accommodate different styles of learning and teachingin the classroom.

The Professional Level

The Isolated Culture of Teaching

The world of teaching is a lonely one. Kwan (1993) observed that there is littleopen communication and discussion among colleagues in Hong Kong.Teachers are used to teaching alone in the classroom and seldom share withtheir own experiences. Subject-based ideology and departmentalism furtheralienate teachers and pull them away from peer collaboration (Lortie, 1975;Hargreaves, 1991). Without mutual support and collaboration, any form ofchange causes fear and the admission of fear is often considered as a sign ofdeviation. Even if they want to talk about their practice, teachers find thatthey do not have the language to communicate their thoughts. They find theirknowledge is tacit and their knowing is in the action (Polanyi, 1958; Schön,1983, 1987).

Deskilling of Teachers

There have been many attempts to define what is good teaching. Hong Kong isno exception (Education Commission, 1997). Reformers often try to specifythe characteristics of good teachers in terms of universal observablecompetencies. However, these behaviouristic and outcome-orientedmeasurement are based on a reductionist view (Wideen & Holborn, 1986).Measurement by standardising teacher’s behaviour is harmful to theprofession. It is a deskilling process which restrains teachers from activeinquiry into their own practice (Apple & Teitelbaum, 1986). In response tosuch deskilling, some teachers, already exhausted with heavy workload andadministrative duties, may ‘tend to rely on a mechanistic, repetitive,teach-to-the-test approach to learning’ (Stringer, 1997, p. 3).

It is ironic to see reforms to enhancing quality teaching end up with aset of performance indicators which do not pay attention to how toencourage critical and reflective thinking among teachers. We believegood teaching is an intellectual activity, which can hardly be fathomedby such techniques and strategies. The quantitative flavour of

WAI SHING LI ET AL

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

standardised measures implies that good teaching is unproblematic,universal and can be prescribed by someone from outside of the class-room. Hence, the deskilling view of teaching removes the possibilityof action research and school-based reform from the teacher.

The Dichotomy of Theory and Practice

Another misunderstanding which restrains teachers from participating inpractical inquiry and classroom-based research is the separation of theoryand practice in education. There is a common belief among practitioners thatit is the theorists who do the theorising and the teachers who teach (do thepractice). This misunderstanding defines teaching and research as twoseparate activities (Carr, 1990). It defines research as a scholarly activity,which is too academic for practitioners. Even if they are able to research, sothe argument goes, teachers are reluctant to claim themselves as researchers.Teachers’ classroom inquiries do not meet the requirements of positivisticmethodologies and the results are often not generalisable (Ross, 1984). Inreturn, this stance tends to reject the idea that teachers can reflect and yetaccepts the idea of theorists of ‘knowledge’. This view is unexamined and yet,for very often teachers are the subjects of these studies from which‘knowledge’ is generated (Elliott, 1991).

The dichotomy ‘reinforces the authoritarian hierarchical distinction’ inschools which disempowers teachers (Altrichter & Posch, 1989, p. 25).Consequently:

a vicious cycle, a tornado of bad work thus develops: because oftheir low status, teachers are excluded from research; researchers‘study down’ the teachers; not informed by the valuable insights ofteachers, the resulting research is abstracted from the lived world ofschool; outside reforms of education emerge from an ungroundedknowledge based; and as such reforms are imposed teachers arefurther disenfranchized and alienated. (Kincheloe, 1991, p. 13)

The Individual Level

Teachers as Personal and Humans

The human factor is often critical to organisational development but seldomreceives adequate consideration in the field of education. In a top-down andhierarchical administration, practitioners’ views are often not heeded or aremarginalised (Sergiovanni, 1987).

Two important features stand out in describing the human factor ineducational change in the context of a Chinese community. First,Cheng (1990) points out that Chinese are used to thinking that ‘it is theindividual who should adapt themselves as far as possible to the

ACTION RESEARCH AND HONG KONG

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

system ... and this has implications for the practice of education’ (pp.166-167). This kind of thinking reinforces the ‘patrimonial bureauc-racy’ of compliance with authority (Bond, 1991). Teachers areconscious of their own positions in the administrative hierarchy.Therefore, it is not uncommon to find that local teachers obey theprincipals’ words and demands. Second, conventional wisdom suggests that Chinese tend to be conser-vative and resistant to change (Yang, 1988). This is often regarded asthe other side of the ‘patrimonial’ coin. What is more important is thatthere might be a lack of supportive social framework which encour-ages and supports change and experimentation. This explains why it isnot easy to find change agents in schools. It is informative to hear twolocal teachers narrating their own difficult experiences of initiatingchange by conducting classroom research in their schools (Chan-Lui,1992; Hon, 1992). Their stories indicate that colleagues are skepticaland afraid about the acceptability of action research conducted inschools. While the cultural side of the human factor in a Chinesecommunity is difficult to transgress, Gross’s remark is worth noting:‘The most common explanation of why innovations … do or do nothave their intended effects places primary emphases on the ability of achange agent to overcome the initial resistance of organization makersto change’ (Gross et al, 1971, p. 1). In fact, resistance to change maybe a common human trait rather than peculiarly Chinese, especially asin various nations and areas of activity, Chinese have been leadinginnovators.In addition, there are three kinds of fear generally associated withchange and transformation. They are (1) the ‘burden of incompetence’,(2) the fear of disclosure, and (3) the lack of time and energy. The ‘Burden of Incompetence’. MacDonald & Rudduck (1971) agree that tochange or innovate is to risk taking the ‘burden of incompetence’. The fear ofincompetence is realised when teachers are put into a novel situation. In thenovel environment, the approved certainties are put aside, opening thepractitioner to the risk of failure or ‘incompetence’.

The Fear of Disclosure. Change is difficult because it involves disclosure, thedisclosure of one’s beliefs, practices and professional attitudes. Without somekind of support from peers, administrators or students, such discloure isthreatening for many people (Day et al, 1987).

Lack of Time and Energy. Teaching in Hong Kong, perhaps more thanelsewhere, is a wearing and taxing job (Cooke et al, 1990; Siu, 1995). Teachershave to cope with extraordinary large classes and work loads as well as with

WAI SHING LI ET AL

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

the ever-changing guidelines and changing roles required by theever-changing society. Students in Hong Kong are becoming increasinglydifficult to manage (Education Convergence, 1998) within the out-datedstructures and procedures. Under such a stressing working environment, it isdifficult to expect teachers to welcome change and reform, especially ifpiecemeal and imposed. It is even more difficult for individuals to take theinitiative of reflecting systematically or to conduct research in their ownclassrooms without genuine support from administration and peers.

Action Research in Hong Kong

Given the scenario described in the previous sections, it is not surprising tofind that action research is not widely known or practised amongpractitioners. Indeed, many teachers would regard ‘research’ as high soundingand should be done by specialists (Chan, 1987). Our own experience asteacher educators is no exception. When the idea of teacher-as-researcherwas first incorporated into some new teacher training programmes, somecolleagues were sceptical about action research. They queried its role inteacher development and school reform. Challenges and difficulties wereencountered when an action research-based professional developmentprogramme was launched 2 years ago in the Hong Kong Institute of Education(Crawford, 1998).

Again, given the factors and restrictions discussed in the paper so far,it is not characteristic to find that major action research projects andactivities are either supported the Department of Education in HongKong or operated by major local tertiary institutions. Examplesinclude:(1) the School Based Curriculum Project Scheme supported and funded by theDepartment of Education (Curriculum Development Committee, 1987);(2) the Teacher Action Research Group for Effective Teaching (TARGET) in theUniversity of Hong Kong (Kwan, 1993);(3) the Self Access Action Research (SAAR) Group operated in the University ofHong Kong (Mueller, 1994);(4) The Institute of Language in Education (now incorporated into the HongKong Institute of Education) offers courses for training and retraininglanguage teachers. It encourages teachers to carry out action research projectto improve classroom teaching. These action research projects often appear inInstitute of Language in Education Journal.

It is not common, however, to see individual teachers who are self-motivatedand initiated in schools work together and engage themselves in actionresearching for improving teaching, curriculum development or school reform.There is still a lack of culture in action-researching in schools and Hong Kongteachers are so used to be ‘self-centered, self-reliance and self-seclusion’ thatthe need for change in collaborative classroom research and dialogue hardlyexists (Kwan, 1993). Even those activities operated or assisted by outsiders,there is a danger of discontinuation if the support stops or disappears. The

ACTION RESEARCH AND HONG KONG

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Head of the TARGET Group made the following comment when she left HongKong and could not take care of it anymore (Kwan, 1993, p. 22):

I have now left Hong Kong and am lecturing at the QueenslandUniversity of Technology in Brisbane. TARGET is now an orphan.Because it is still a very early stage of formation, the loss of theconvening head has loosened the enthusiasm of the members. Apartfrom the cases of Teresa and Priscilla other members still have a waitand see attitude ...

We agree with the Head of TARGET Group that action research should not beimposed on schools and teachers from outside agents. However, it is not tosay that supportive outsiders or agents are not needed, at least, at the earlystage of development of action research groups. At the heart of school changeand teacher development is the teacher’s inquiring mind. The change ofteacher’s attitude to see teachers as change agents is crucial. Successfulchange agents are the result of self-realisation and initiation supported byappropriate staff development programmes as well as initial and in-servicetraining programmes. Good administrators and leaders should prepareteachers as researchers who can read the world of teaching in such a way notonly that they can understand it, but can change it for the better.

Conclusion

Facilitating teachers to learn from their own experience and improve theirpractice by action research is an important means to teacher empowerment,school improvement and educational change. The idea of action research,however, has never been well received in Hong Kong nor is the idea explicitlysupported as a sound practice in the local context.

In this article, we have argued that the lack of action research [5] isinseparable from the Colony’s historical and geographical background.Although it is naive to stress the significance of the past, historicalantecedents and the geography of the city seem to remain obviousinfluences. And it is not difficult to suggest alternatives for a new andbetter system. The early education system was closely related to theearly administrative hierarchy at large. This was the base of thecolony’s educational system. Other forces were used to bolster thesystem, e.g. the competitive, examination-driven schooling systemreinforced uniformity among teacher practices, while the revival of‘Taylorism’ nourished the paternalistic ideology. Later, the damagingideology of positivism and the separation of theory and practicereinforced the sad picture. The top-down bureaucratic system was castinto rigid shape. Consequently, a special system with its own cultureand characteristics survives and blossoms, hindering the development

WAI SHING LI ET AL

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

of professionals, teacher reflectivity, action research, school improve-ment, educational innovation and democratisation of the workplace.The various negative elements discussed in this paper are found tobelong to each of four different levels in the educational system. Aclassification of barriers and factors restricting action research in HongKong is shown in Table I. These four levels are the policy, system,professional and individual. Each of these levels, together withspecific contributing factors, imposes different restrictions on actionresearch among teachers. These barriers are inter-related and inter-dependent. The process by which different kinds of impact are gener-ated is complex. We can imagine the system works both dynamicallyand ecologically. An initiative might start off at the policy level andworks upwards and downwards. Change might also begin at theground level, blocking the possible development of action research. We conceive our analysis as an initial explanation of the issue. Untilthe issue of the lack of action research is properly understood, practi-tioners, researchers and teacher educators can hardly initiate practical,comprehensive and effective plans to enhance teacher research andreflection.

ACTION RESEARCH AND HONG KONG

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

115mm

Table I. A classification of barriers and factors restricting action research.

Notes

[1] For the purpose of discussion, the term action research is interpreted in thebroadest sense of the word. It includes research conducted by teachers toimprove classroom teaching, curriculum planning and school improvement(Stenhouse, 1975; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990). It also includes various formsof reflectivity and theorising (Schön, 1983; Clark, 1988) and criticalunderstanding to empower teachers and transform the education system (Carr &Kemmis, 1986). Action research is considered the basic of educational change,staff development and democratisation of workplace in the school and the systemas a whole (Elliott, 1989; Kincheloe, 1991).

[2] Biggs (1995) has described TOC as ‘A qualitative, criterion reference approachcurrently being implemented in Hong Kong where the curriculum is graded into aseries of “targets” that students may aim for according to their ability and pasthistory of success’ (p. 190).

[3] The Education Commission (EC) was established in 1984 by the Hong Konggovernment. According to Hong Kong Report (1992), ‘It is the highest advisorybody on education. It advises the government on the development of theeducation system in the light of community needs. Its terms of reference are todefine overall objectives, to formulate and recommend priorities forimplementation’ (Hong Kong Government, 1992, p. 125).

WAI SHING LI ET AL

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

[4] It is safe for teachers to use of the approved textbooks under the elitist system ofschooling for three reasons: (1) they are approved by the Director of Education,(2) they provide the basics for examination, and (3) parents like to see theirchildren are learning the ‘official’ curriculum.

[5] Our discussion is not meant to be exhaustive. We hope the article stimulatesfurther discussion of this kind.

Correspondence

Wai Shing Li, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Hong Kong Instituteof Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong.

References

Altrichter, H. & Posch, P. (1989) Does the ‘grounded theory’ approach offer a guidingparadigm for teacher research? Cambridge Journal of Education, 19, pp. 21-31.

Apple, M. & Teitelbaum, K. (1986) Are teachers losing control of their skills andcurriculum? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18, pp. 177-184.

Biggs, J. (1995) Assessment of learning, in J. Biggs & D. Watkins (Eds) ClassroomLearning: educational psychology for the Asian teacher. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Biggs, J. (1996) The assessment scene in Hong Kong, in J. Biggs (Ed.) Testing: toeducate or to select. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Educational Publications.

Board of Education (1997) Report on Review of 9-year Compulsory Education. HongKong: Hong Kong Government.

Bond, M.H. (1991) Beyond the Chinese Face: insights from psychology. Hong Kong:Oxford University Press.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and actionresearch. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Carr, W. (1990) Educational theory and its relation to educational practice, inN. Entwistle (Ed.) Handbook of Educational Ideas and Practices. London:Routledge.

Chan, J. (1987) Continuing education for language teachers through researchactivities, in V. Bickley (Ed.) Exploring CELT: continuing education for languageteachers. Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education.

Chan, Y.C. & Cheng, Y.C. (1993) A study of principals’ instructional leadership inHong Kong secondary schools, Educational Research Journal, 8, pp. 55-67.

Chan-Lui, L.Y. (1992) School-based study and research [in Chinese], in Ming Pao, 10October, 1992.

Cheng, K.M. (1990) The culture of schooling in east Asia, in N. Entwistle (Ed.)Handbook of Educational Ideas and Practices. London: Routledge.

Cheng, K.M. (1995) The neglected dimension: cultural comparison in educationaladministration, in K.C. Wong & K.M. Cheng (Eds) Educational Leadership andChange. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Cheng, K.M. (1997) The policymaking process, in G.A. Postiglione & W.O. Lee (Eds)Schooling in Hong Kong: organization, teaching and social context. Hong Kong:Hong Kong University Press.

Clark, C.M. (1988) Asking the right questions about teacher preparation:Contributions of research on teacher thinking, in J. Lowyck, C.M. Clark & R.

ACTION RESEARCH AND HONG KONG

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Halkes (Eds) Teacher Thinking and Professional Action. Leuven: Leuven UniversityPress.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1990) Research on teaching and teacher research:the issues that divide, Educational Researcher, 19(2), pp. 2-11.

Connelly, F.M. & Ben-Peretz, M. (1980) Teachers’ roles in the using and doing ofresearch and curriculum development, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12(2),pp. 95-107.

Cooke, B., Pang, K.C., Kan, F. & Shek, C. (1990) Research on beginning teachers inHong Kong, Educational Research Journal, 5, pp. 65-80.

Crawford, N. (1998) Changing professional practice, paper presented to theInternational Teacher Education Conference, East China Normal University,Shanghai, PRC.

Curriculum Development Council (1987) The School Based Curriculum Project Scheme.Hong Kong: Education Department.

Day, C., Whitaker, P. & Wren, D. (1987) Appraisal and Professional Development inPrimary Schools. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Education Commission (1997) Education Commission Report No. 7 (Quality schooleducation). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

Education Convergence (1998) Perspectives of Student Behaviour Disorder [in Chinese].Hong Kong: Longman.

Education Department (1971) Education Regulations. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Ebbutt, D. & Elliott, J. (Eds) (1985) Issues in Teaching for Understanding. Layerthorpe:Longman/Schools Curriculum Development Committee.

Elliott, J. (1989) Action-research and the emergence of teacher appraisal in the UnitedKingdom, paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, SanFrancisco, USA.

Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Fullan, M. (1991) The Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Fullan, M. (1993) Change Forces. London: Falmer Press.

Gross, N., Giacquinta, J.B. & Bernstein, M. (1971) Implementing OrganizationalInnovations: a national study of the open classroom in the USA. New York: BasicBooks.

Hargreaves, A. (1991) Contrived collegiality: the micro-politics of teacher collaboration,in J. Blase (Ed.) The Politics of Life in Schools. New York: Sage.

Hon, T.C. (1992) The difficulties of conducting research inside school [in Chinese], Ming Pao, 11 November.

Hong Kong Government (1992) Hong Kong Report 1992. Hong Kong: GovernmentPrinter.

House, E. (1974) The Politics of Educational Innovation. California: McCutchan.

Kincheloe, J.L. (1991) Teachers as Researchers: qualitative inquiry as a path toempowerment. London: Falmer Press.

Kwan, T.Y.L. (1993) Contexts for action research development: the case for Hong Kong,Curriculum Forum, 3(3), pp. 11-23.

Lichtenstein, G., McLaughlin, M.W. & Knudsen, J. (1992) Teacher empowerment andprofessional knowledge, in A. Liberman (Ed.) The Changing Contexts of Teaching,

WAI SHING LI ET AL

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Ninety-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago:Chicago University Press.

Llewellyn, J., Hancock, G., Kirst, M. & Roeloffs, K. (1982) A Perspective on Education inHong Kong (The Llewellyn Report). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

Lortie, D. (1975) Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

MacDonald, B. & Rudduck, J. (1971) Curriculum research and development projects:barriers to success, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 41, pp. 147-154.

McClelland, G. (1991) Curriculum development in Hong Kong, in C. Marsh & P. Morris(Eds) Curriculum Development in East Asia. London: Falmer Press.

McKernan, J. (1991) Curriculum Action research. New York: St Martin’s Press.

Morris, P. (1985a) Teachers’ perception of the barriers to the implementation of apedagogic innovation: a south east Asian case study. International Review ofEducation, 31, pp. 3-18.

Morris, P. (1985b) The context of curriculum development in Hong Kong: an analysis ofthe problems and possibilities, Asian Journal of Public Administration, 3(1),pp. 18-35.

Morris, P. (1990) Bureaucracy, professionalization and school centered innovationstrategies, International Review of Education, 36, pp. 21-41.

Morris, P. (1996a) The management of participation in the policy-making process: thecase of the Education Commission in Hong Kong, Journal of Education Policy, 11,pp. 319-336.

Morris, P. (1996b) Policy level: the four basic dilemmas of implementing TOC [inChinese], Sing Tao Yat Po, 18 December.

Morris, P. & Marsh, C. (1992) Curriculum patterns and issues in East Asia: acomparative survey of seven east Asian societies, Journal of Education Policy, 7(3),pp. 252-266.

Morris, P. & Sweeting, A. (1991) Education and politics: the case of Hong Kong from anhistorical perspective, Oxford Review of Education, 17, pp. 249-267.

Mueller, A. (1994) Action research contributes more to teaching than just solvingdiscrete problems in the classroom, in B. Norman (Ed.) Language and Learning.Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education.

Ng, K.H. & Cheng, Y.C. (1993) A study of teachers’ attitudes on school reform [inChinese], Chinese University of Hong Kong Educational Journal, 21, pp. 3-14.

Polanyi, M. (1958) Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ross, D. (1984) A practical model for conducting action research in public schoolsettings, Contemporary Education, 55, pp. 113-117.

Schaeffler, R.J. (1967) The School as a Center of Inquiry. New York: Harper & Row.

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

Schön, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T.L. (1987) The Principalship: a reflective practice perspective. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Siu, O.L. (1995) Occupational stress among schoolteachers: a review of researchfindings relevant to policy formation, Educational Journal (The Chinese Universityof Hong Kong) 23, pp. 105-124.

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development.London: Heinemann.

ACTION RESEARCH AND HONG KONG

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Stringer, E. (1997) Reinterpreting teaching, in E. Stringer, M.F. Agnello, S.C. Baldwin,L.M. Christensen, D.L.P. Henry, K.I. Henry, T.P. Katt, P.G. Nason, V. Newman,R. Petty & P.S. Tinsley-Batson (Eds) Community-based Ethnography: breakingtraditional boundaries of research, teaching, and learning. New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Sweeting, A. (1983) Hong Kong, in R.M. Thomas & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds) Schooling inEast Asia: forces of change. Oxford: Pergamon.

Sweeting, A. (1990) Education in Hong Kong pre-1841 to 1941: fact and opinion. HongKong: Hong Kong University Press.

Tam, M.K. (1997) The policy of primary education, in K.M. Chan, K.H. Chan,Y.C. Au-Yeung, K.C. Wong & M.K. Tam (Eds) Educational Administration [inChinese]. Hong Kong: Open Learning Institute Press.

Walker, A. & Cheng, Y.C. (1996) Professional development in Hong Kong primaryschools: beliefs, practices and change, Journal of Education for Teaching, 22(2),pp. 197-212.

Wideen, M.F. & Holborn, P. (1986) Research in Canadian teacher education, CanadianJournal of Education, 11(4), pp. 45-55.

Wong, C.K. (1994) Let the school decide to participate in TOC [in Chinese], Ming Pao,20 December.

Yang, K.S. (1988) The Metamorphosis of Chinese [in Chinese]. Taiwan: Crown Books.

WAI SHING LI ET AL

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

9:28

21

Oct

ober

201

4