CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND

In describing this process I proceed on two levels. My task is both practical and theoretical. I offer a narrative account of a practice, while at the same time attempting to conceptualize the nature of that practice. This is a complicated task, because I seem to speak in two voices simultaneously: the narrator's voice that presents the case and the theoretical voice that conceptualizes what is presented. Moreover, my narrator's voice tells about something very abstract.....My two voices are likely to appeal to two different audiences and may not seem very compatible. I nevertheless persist in proceeding this way because I believe. . . .(Conle, 2000)

Not only did I tell about narrative, I engaged in narrative-telling. On a practical level, I presented stories about the practice of educational research while I engaged the theories that undergird and emerge from that practice. I spoke of Christian faith and ethical practice, of liberation theology and action research. I did this because I believed that I, as a teacher, had to do my part to reclaim and re-form the educational knowledge and theories that external or "academic" researchers might claim were theirs. I did this in a way that was quintessentially mine--through the telling of my stories. Not only did I tell my stories but I made the claim that it was through the telling of stories that teachers will not only come to research and create "living educational theories," (Whitehead, 1993) but will also create the ethical context for that research.

The Cohort

This project evolved within a Master of Education program through Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, that they created jointly with the Grand Erie District School Board located in Southern Ontario. The model for the program was a cohort group made up of teachers and administrators drawn almost exclusively from the Grand Erie Board. The courses for the program were determined collaboratively by the members of the group along with the school board and the university. They offered the courses in the school board area, and brought in professors to teach the courses. Most members of the cohort took the same courses in the same sequence.

One understanding in the creation of the cohort group was that the particular focus of research would be action research, more specifically the model of action research put forward in the work of Jack Whitehead at the University of Bath, UK. Whitehead's conception of Action research developed out of questions arising from his practice as a classroom teacher. Whitehead (1993) grounded his epistemology in Polanyi's (1964) notion of personal knowledge. Whitehead drew from Polanyi the notion that "personal knowledge involved a decision to understand the world from one's own point of view as an individual claiming originality and exercising judgement with universal intent" (personal e-mail communication, March 2001) Specifically, this model of action research involved questions of the type: "How do I improve this process of education here?" (Whitehead, 1993, p. 35, 57) In this model, self-identification was central because the research was self-study. This context set the stage for the conflict out of which this project arose.

Another area of focus for the cohort group, related to, but not restricted to Whitehead's influence was narrative. Jackie Delong and Susan Drake brought stories very much to the forefront of our discussions. We spent many Saturdays sharing our stories-- both professional and personal-- with group members. Our reflections on readings were often as journals in which they expected us to make personal connections to the readings.

Michael Manley Casimir introduced the group to Thomas Green's "voices of conscience" (1985). Although Green's "voices" are not all internal, they are directed personally-- to individuals and groups. Green also has a high regard for the place of the stories of communities in the formation of ethical understandings. His voice of conscience as membership in a group while remaining true to a story was particularly pertinent (Green, 1985). Green's ideas further embedded in my mind, the ideas of the personal and the narrative in the practice of teaching.

From Romulo Magsino I gained an appreciation for the personal qualities necessary to create leaders within an educational context. He introduced me also to the writings of Eliot Eisner, an educator whose views on the artistic nature of teaching and educational research became important to me (1999).

From the beginning, my experience in the Master's program focussed upon many realities within the world of education and educational research. These were the personal, the subjective, and the narrative. As the culmination of my Master's program, it was only fitting that this project focus on the personal, subjective narrative in the practice of research.

Setting the Context for Research

Within the cohort group, the context for research generally fell into a very narrow approach to action research. McNiff (2000) divided research into three paradigms: the empirical, the interpretive, and the critical theoretic. She placed action research in the critical theoretic paradigm, and further divided action research into three approaches: the interpretive, the critical and the living theory. I might have argued with the divisions, in that, for example, the critical "struggle against the forces of colonisation and oppression" (McNiff, 2000, p. 201) was present in the living theory approach, but I did not dwell on that point. More important, it was telling to note that the only approach from which an external researcher was, by definition, excluded, was the living theory approach -- the one championed by Whitehead and McNiff. Moreover, the living theory approach was the only one in which the values of the researcher were paramount, in that the researchers tried to "live their values in their practice, recognising that this inevitably [gave] rise to contradictions" (McNiff, 2000, p. 201). As McNiff would have it, the focus of action research was to try at least to understand and aim to resolve the contradictions. This would help the researcher to work more productively and enable others to do the same (McNiff, 2000).

Although this project did not evolve into an action research project, but rather devolved from one, I attempted to remain true to the values of the living theory approach to action research. I took the contradictions that arose from my attempt to produce an action research project within the ethical framework provided by the Senate Research Ethics Board of Brock University (SREB), and I tried to understand them. That attempt at understanding was focussed both within and without myself, attempting both subjective and objective stances. I attempted to resolve some of those contradictions by focussing upon how I might more fully live out my values within a research context. I did this so that I might more effectively carry out ethical research and perhaps, to enable others to do the same.

Methodology

In narrative inquiry, the telos is inexplicit. It is the tacit end-in-view that drives the inquiry. The writing in personal narrative inquiry is therefore not arbitrary, but develops within the writing and within the dynamic of the writer's life. One might compare it to a quest that presses for acknowledgement through inquiry. (Conle, 2000)

When I first encountered action research of the living theory variety, I knew that there was a connection to my years at seminary in theological education. I did not know how that connection would ultimately unfold. In a sense, my quest over the last 2 years was to investigate those connections. I chose narrative as the method by which I investigated the connections--through the telling of stories. However, narrative was more than the method. I maintained that narrative was the only way in which I could investigate the dynamics of my life as it pertained to theology, research, and teaching. Narrative was, therefore, also the methodological stance.

First, I wanted to examine what was the root of my reaction to the SREB. The "tacit end-in-view" (Conle, 2000) was the elusive vision that somehow the divergent parts of my life were connected. I am the offspring of a mathematician and a family therapist, a positivist theorist and an autobiographer. I started my academic career as a systems design engineer and left that for music, theology, social work, and education. This project embodied all of those worlds. I was in conflict with positivist objective forms of ethical reasoning, and yet I used objective forms of reasoning to mount a critique. I have embodied this contradiction in my life and in my story. I am a living contradiction (Whitehead, 1993). Ironically, I maintained methodological consistency through narrative and not through critical method. I remained true to my story.

The Project Emerges

This was a project that started its life as a research project. That is, I tried to make this into a research project, but I failed. Or perhaps, it was a project with a subject of one-- myself. The impetus for the project was the initial rejection of my project proposal (Appendix A). Admittedly, I wrote the proposal hurriedly and incompletely, and yet it contained the kernel of the ideas contained in this project. The questions asked by the Senate Research Ethics Board struck at the very heart of the kind of research in which I would have (and have) engaged. Plan B would have had me examine the reaction of the SREB to the proposals of my fellow students. This held promise, but came with two major drawbacks. First, I would have had to pass my research through the SREB again, and I was not sure how I felt about that. I resisted the notion, and the resistance became a block to the writing. When I decided to proceed as if I were not going back to the SREB, the project moved ahead. As part of the project, I unpacked the reasons for this resistance. Secondly, but very important, I held the words of a fellow student. She--and rightly--had reservations about allowing me to use her work in my project. If my project were to examine why one could not or perhaps should not attempt to place personal subjective research under the scrutiny of the SREB, why would someone who was doing just that, choose to participate? Moreover, I intended to draw a connection between personal subjective research and theology, most notably liberation theologies. These were not subjects that held any meaning for my colleagues. I meant this not as a judgement of their faith, but rather as a recognition of the reality of their experiences. Liberation theologies or any other formal study of a theology was not part of their world. Theology was part of my world--part of my story--and if I wanted to tell that story, then I could not tell the stories of my colleagues. Thus, I arrived at the topic of my project. I would examine the response of the SREB to the proposal to conduct personal subjective research into my teaching practice. However, I would only use one proposal-- my own. I would attempt to explain and understand my own reactions to their statements and what I believed to be the impetus for both the responses of the SREB and my own reactions.

The Structure of the Project

Every good story requires conflict, and I began by narrating the events that led up to the formation of this paper's topic. Next, the "engineer and mathematician" examined the policy document and extracted the prevailing view of how we should conduct ethical research. I then drew connections between personal subjective research on teaching and liberation and narrative theologies. This was perhaps the most difficult part of the process because the connection was so very personal and tenuous. Here I called upon the autobiographer and told some stories from my years at Seminary. Next, I moved to the present and examined the roots of the particular type of action research championed by Jack Whitehead. Here I also told some stories that illuminated why this was an appealing methodology for me. Finally, I shared some thoughts about how we might form a personal, subjective, and narrative ethic for research.

The Conflict

Yes, there is trouble, there is tension, there is a problem and there is a solution sought. But the solution is not the relief needed by someone who is sick or in need of care. The problem, although it may be connected to some sort of unwellness, is primarily an impetus for inquiry. In that sense, it is more like a subconscious question mark about something that is emotionally as well as intellectually interesting. (Conle, 2000)

When I first applied to Brock University's Senate Research Ethics Board (SREB) they sent my research model back for re-submission. The exchange was as follows:

I am involved in self-study. Although the study question has been defined, it will, as this is an action research study, by necessity change. It should therefore be seen as an emerging study. Nevertheless, the essential nature of the study will not change. I am reflecting upon the effect that my actions have on my class. The research participants are not doing anything that they would not do in the regular course of the year in my class. They will, however, be asked to evaluate both the class and my teaching, and that evidence will become part of the project. Observations that I make as part of my job will also form part of the evidence that I gather to document my influence within the class. The class members are participants inasmuch as they are participants in my class and have no real choice but to be there just as I have no real choice but to observe them and draw conclusions. I will be observing what I do to enable students to work together productively. The primary focus of any questioning guides will be to determine how students feel about the classroom environment. These guides will take the form of open-ended questionnaires throughout the year(see attached) and the possible use of videotape responses made without the researcher present. Again I stress that these are normal parts of my classroom practice. Videotapes will also be used to passively record the classroom environment. The purpose of the tapes will be to determine what I as the researcher am doing to facilitate group interaction. Any further use or display of that videotape evidence would come only with the express written consent of the class members. (Application to the SREB October 2000, Appendix A)

The response of the board was terse and to the point.

Your claim that you are not doing anything beyond normal classroom practice is erroneous, as you do not normally collect information from your students for the purposes of (a) research for your own degree requirements, and (b) publication. (SREB request for re-submission, November 27, 2000, Appendix 2)

How was I to respond to this statement? I had, in fact, performed research into my classroom practice of the type suggested in the proposal, and that research had been presented and published in a limited form. True, it was not for degree requirements, but I questioned whether the impetus for the research was really central to the intent or the content. Nonetheless, something disturbed me about the way in which I felt that I was being told that I was not aware of what I was doing in my classroom and that someone or some group could define that for me. There were also three additional areas that the SREB commented upon that again raised questions with me.

The first was the area of non-participation of students. "You need to explain what you will do with students whose parents do not provide permission to participate. What will they do while other students are engaged in activities related to the research? How will you photograph, audio-tape, and video-tape classroom activities without taping or photographing those students who are not participating" (SREB request for re-submission, November 27, 2000)?

The second area involved confidentiality. "You provide wide-ranging guarantees of confidentiality. These cannot be maintained in group-based research. Please clarify" (SREB request for re-submission, November 27, 2000).

The third area involved relationships of power. "Given the relation of power that contextualises this research, how will you ensure that students/parents do not feel coerced into participation, and how will you successfully ensure students that their participation or non-participation will not influence their academic record" (SREB request for re-submission, November 27, 2000)?

These three areas justifiably deserved careful consideration, but were the questions really appropriate to the type of research that I proposed? I had outlined a self-study research model, one in which I would self-identify, and one that was based upon my actions in my classroom. I was to be the subject of my research, but I was studying my effect upon others. The classroom was the context of my research but not the subject of the research. The participation of the students was fundamental to the research, and they could not refuse to participate. Levels of participation were possible, inasmuch as some students would not have their responses to me recorded, but total non-participation was not possible. Also, there were no times when the research would not be conducted. As the SREB acknowledged, it was not possible to ensure confidentiality when the subject of the research self-identifies, and this could not be resolved.

Finally, the relationships of power within the classroom were central to the research study. It was those relationships that I wanted to study. Power was at the core of any teaching relationship, whether it was power over, power to, power with, or empowerment.

In light of these conflicts, I revised my questions. My questions became: What is wrong with this picture? Why are these questions being asked about this research? Why must I fit my research into this model? Where is the source of the conflict between these two models -- my research and the model suggested by the questions of the SREB? Why is it that I feel the conflict so acutely?

The statements of the SREB and the document that spawned the existence of the SREB suggested that research was best carried out apart from the practice that may be the object of the study. This was a classic objective stance. The observed was believed to be separate from the observer, and much effort was expended to ensure that the relationship remained separate. The research model appeared to favour positivist understandings. The expectation seemed to be that the research was planned in advance through a known path. Propositions were encouraged which were then proved or disproved by empirical evidence. Theories, therefore, informed practice. In my experience, this model of research fit the understandings of traditional "high church" theological beliefs. The Bible or theology seen as a series of propositional statements expounding knowable and absolute truths about the nature of God and humanity. We may not know the truth, but -- in the spirit of the X-Files -- it is "out there." Writings such as the Ten Commandments seen as prescriptions for ethical human behaviour. Faith and action separate -- albeit linked -- and hierarchically related, with faith preceded and in some senses superseded action or works.

However, in my experience, there were alternate ways of understanding research. Michael Polanyi (1964) -- in Personal Knowledge -- "reject[ed] the ideal of scientific detachment" (xiii). Jack Whitehead (1993) took the ideas of Polanyi and created a form of research where the "I" was integral to the research. Teachers and others researched questions of the kind "How do I improve this process of education here?" (Whitehead, 1993, p. 35, 57). Not only did the research reject objectivity, it was subjective both to person and place. As teachers researched their own practice, they added to the theory and knowledge base of teaching. Practice informed theory. This understanding resonated with my own theological and faith understandings as with the theological understandings of the first liberation theologians in South America, people like Gustavo Gutierrez, Juan Luis Segundo, and Paulo Friere. For these theologians, reading the Bible was not something to be done with detachment, but with a thoroughly subjective eye, embracing the understandings that arose because of who we are as readers. Truth was not external to the reader, but resided with and within. For me, in this vein, I read the decalogue not so much as a prescription for action, but rather as a description of the community of people who believed a particular narrative about God as Saviour. Faith did not call to action, but action was the evidence of faith.

The purpose of this project was to add flesh to the skeleton of these ideas, showing how the interplay between faith, practice, research, and teaching has informed my understanding of the ethical standards for research. First, I did this to understand my own beliefs and values; second, to explain to others those same beliefs and values; and finally to suggest how we might respect and value the ethics that emerge from the stories of teachers.