The key aim of this research module is to use Action Research to design an intervention that promotes social justice. All the students I work with are neurodivergent, so any intervention is already targeting a student population who experiences barriers to access in a HE environment.
‘Rather than being predetermined, qualitative methods often evolve during the course of data collection and analysis’ (Morrows 2007, cited in Maharaj (2016, p.4). This is certainly true as the research project developed.
I found a paper on Action Research and Intersectionality: making your research more inclusive, but it quickly became apparent that my sample size was too small, 5 participants, to map the intersecting identities of my participants and measure significance. However, I thought it was important for participants to self-identify and asked them via email to provide demographic details. Feedback at a subsequent tutorial brought up ethical considerations related to the collection of this data. A key concern was that I had not specified in the Ethical Action Plan that I was intending to collect demographic details. This was indeed an oversight. Another concern raised was the fact that the sample size was so small that there was a risk of deductive disclosure. In my defense, I have always collected demographic details when carrying out research. Research concerned with social justice in academia examines the disparities about who succeeds and who doesn’t, so we need to know the identities of the participants. However, in this instance I now see that including the demographic data would not add any meaningful analysis, so I have left it out.
The research method is field notes based on participatory observation. Findings from the primary research will be analysed using thematic analysis and evidenced by secondary sources from relevant literature. I was mindful of the ethics involving writing and interpreting field notes based on observation. ‘Observation…a continuous struggle against…tendencies to lapse into realist or objectifying modes of description that see only what is already assumed to be “there”’ (Jones et al, 2010, p.479). However, if the author is reflexive and conscious of their own positionality and potential for bias ethnographic writing offers the opportunity to bring lived experience into the classroom and inform learning/pedagogy (Emerson et al 1995).
‘In action research, interpretation is a deliberate action, requiring preparation and formal process’(Kalmbach – Phillips, & Carr, 2014, p.154). The researcher is not merely informing the audience of what was observed but is providing a version influenced by their own positionality. Maharaj talks about the need to reflect on our status as an insider or outsider and not just to reflect but to critically reflect on how our status affects the stated outcome of the research project (2016)