The purpose of mess in action research: Building rigour though a messy turn

Educational Action Research

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 277-291

  Cook, Tina ^a  

^a NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Action research; Knowing; Mess; Rigour; Seeing; Transformational

Indexed keywords

EID: 68249152296     PISSN: 09650792     EISSN: 17475074     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09650790902914241     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Atkinson, T., and G. Claxton, eds. 2000. The intuitive practitioner: On the value of not always knowing what one is doing. Bristol: Open University Press.
2. Barthes, R. 1982. Camera Lucida. London: Jonathan Cape.
3. Blumer, H. 1969 Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Bradbury, H., and P. Reason. 2001. Conclusion: Broadening the bandwidth of validity: Five issues and seven choice-points for improving the quality of action research. In Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice, ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 447-56. London: Sage Publications.
5. Cameron, E. 2001. Facilitation made easy. London: Kogan Page.
6. Caro-Bruce, C. 2000. Action research facilitators' handbook. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. http://www.nsdc.org.
7. Carr, W. 1995. For education: Towards critical education inquiry. Buckingham: Open University Press.
8. Carr, W. 1997. Philosophy and method in educational research. Cambridge Journal of Education 27, no. 2: 203-9.
9. Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming critical. Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes: Falmer.
10. Cook, T. 1998. The importance of mess in action research. Educational Action Research 6, no. 1: 93-108.
11. Cook, T. 2004. Starting where we can: Using action research to develop inclusive practice. International Journal of Early Years Education 12, no. 1: 3-16.
12. Cook, T., and P. Inglis. 2007. Understanding research, consent and ethics: A participatory research methodology in a medium secure unit for men with a learning disability. Final report: NHS National R&D Programme on Forensic Mental Health Research Funding Scheme. http://www.nfmhhp.org.uk/research.htm.
13. Deutscher, I., F.P. Pestello, and H.F.G. Pestello. 1993. Sentiments and acts. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
14. Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. 1978 ed. London: Verso.
15. Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the oppressed, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
16. Goldsworthy, A. 1990. Andy Goldsworthy. London: Viking.
17. Heaney, S. 1999. Poetry: How it has fared and functioned in the twentieth century. Sounding the Century, BBC Radio 3, 17 January 1999.
18. Hockney, D. 1988. A retrospective. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
19. Hockney, D. 2004. Hockney's pictures. London: Thames Hudson.
20. Hogan, C. 2002. Understanding facilitation. London: Kogan Page.
21. Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggert. 1990. The action research planner. Geelong: Deakin University Press
22. Lather, P. 1986a. Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review 56, no. 3: 257-77.
23. Lather, P. 1986b. Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange 17, no. 4: 63-84.
24. Lather, P. 1993. Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The Sociological Quarterly 34, no. 4: 673-93.
25. Law, J. 2004. After method: Mess in social science research. Oxon: Routledge.
26. Lincoln, Y.S., and E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
27. Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. 2000. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 163-88. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Manning, K. 1997. Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations without prescription. Qualitative Inquiry 3, no. 1: 93-115.
29. McTaggart, R., ed. 1997. Participatory action research. New York: Albany.
30. Mellor, N. 1999. From exploring practice to exploring inquiry: A practitioner researcher's experience. PhD thesis, University of Northumbria at Newcastle.
31. Mellor, N. 2001. Messy method: The unfolding story. Educational Action Research 9, no. 3: 465-84.
32. Reason, P., and H. Bradbury, eds. 2001. Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.
33. Reason, P., and W.R. Torbert. 2001. The action turn: Towards a transformational social science. Concepts and Transformation 6, no. 1: 1-37.
34. Sanger, J. 1994. Seven types of creativity: Looking for insights in data analysis. British Educational Research Journal 20, no. 2: 175-85.
35. Schön, D.A. 1983. The reflective practitioner. Aldershot: Avebury.
36. Scriven, M. 1997. Truth and objectivity in evaluation. In Evaluation for the 21st century, ed. E. Chelimsky and W.R. Shadish, 477-500. London: Sage.
37. Seale, C., and D. Silverman. 1997. Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. European Journal of Public Health 7: 379-84.
38. Somekh, B. 2002. Inhabiting each other's castles: Towards knowledge and mutual growth through collaboration. In Theory and practice in action research: Some international perspectives, ed. C. Day, J. Elliott, B. Somekh and R. Winter, 79-104. Oxford: Symposium Books.
39. Stenhouse, L., ed. 1975. An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
40. Stringer, E. 1999. Action research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
41. Sumara, D.J., and R. Luce-Kapler. 1993. Action research as a writerly text: Locating colabouring in collaboration. Education Action Research 1, no. 3: 387-96.
42. Thomas, G. 1998. The myth of rational research. British Educational Research Journal 24, no. 2: 141-61.
43. Winter, R. 1989. Learning from experience: Principles and practice in action research. London: Falmer Press.
44. Winter, R. 2000. 'Truth or fiction': Problems of validity and authenticity in narratives of action research. Paper presented at the Philosophy of Education Seminar European Education Research Association Conference. September, in Edinburgh.