Hinchey, Patricia, H. (2008). Action Research Primer. Reviewed by Jennifer Mahon, University of Nevada, Reno

Hinchey, Patricia, H. (2008). Action Research Primer. New York: Peter Lang Pp. 144       ISBN 978-0-8204-9527-9 Reviewed by Jennifer Mahon University of Nevada, Reno December 24, 2008 Action Research Primer, by Patricia H. Hinchey, is a rare combination of complexity and brevity. Through the lens of critical theory, the book is designed to introduce action research to the uninitiated, the teacher, whom Hinchey describes as “responsible for the minute-by-minute decisions” that make or break student learning. Yet each of these decisions is tailored to the specifics of a particular classroom and community, to particular facilities, technologies, and pedagogical strengths of the teacher. Many teachers, therefore, have lamented the reams of research in education as “one size fits all” solutions to classroom problems. Notes Bartolome (2002), “…many of my teachers seek generic teaching methods that will work with a variety of minority students populations, and they grow anxious and impatient when reminded that instruction for any group of students needs to be tailored or individualized to some extent” (p. 407, emphasis in original). Action research, the author argues, is a tool that provides customized answers to questions of teaching and learning. Seemingly to ensure the content is accessible, its 129 pages of text are organized into just five chapters, each ending with a glossary of terms. The first two chapters begin with a basic overview of action research, especially as it relates to major research paradigms. Unlike other short introductory texts that might ignore the foundational aspects for fear of alienating the practitioner with seemingly useless details of history, the author has clearly taken pains to provide a succinct yet purposed introduction to action research history. Included are key figures such as Kurt Lewin, Lawrence Stenhouse, and Paolo Freire. The author explains that these individuals are included to show the variety of disciplinary ancestry that grounds action research. This is fitting with the author’s argument that action research is a method that can be tailored to numerous educational problems. Additionally by locating action research within the major research paradigms, the author has again used a thoughtful organizational technique. Many graduate students must learn to differentiate studies that fall into either the positivist or interpretive paradigms. Some will be told that action research is not “real research”, however, by being able to situate their work within the major investigative frameworks, they may be able to refute such criticism. In fact it is hard to understand why anyone would look disdainfully upon action research for, as Stenhouse (1975) argued, teachers must have a “capacity for autonomous self-development through systematic self-study, through the work of other teachers and through the testing of ideas by classroom teachers” (p. 144). Through such systematic and critical review of their own work, Stenhouse believed, teaching and learning would be improved. I believe the strongest aspect of this book is the critical lens it adopts. Readers familiar with the work of Freire (1970), one of the key figures cited by the author, will recognize the importance of action to true transformation in learning. Hinchey’s efforts maintain this perspective in each chapter, taking a spiral approach, rather than simply relegating a discussion of critical topics to one chapter. In chapter three, the author introduces the necessary concepts or steps that action practitioners must perform to carry out sound research, all the while, maintaining the critical perspective. For example, the author urges readers not to blindly adopt any one approach to action research, even those suggested in this book, but rather, to make methodical choices based on the questions to be answered. The author seems to recognize that the changes in practice action research necessitates can be daunting as Shor and Freire (2002) explain that teachers “fear the awkwardness of relearning their profession in front of their students. Teachers want to feel expert, so the need to recreate ourselves on the job is intimidating to many” (p. 479). The remainder of the book moves into the practicalities of doing action research – formulating the research question and plan, collecting and analyzing data, and producing and sharing findings. Chapter three assists the reader in deciphering the focus of the research study. The author addresses some of the topics which may be more daunting to novice researchers such as the literature review, informed consent and research ethics. The reader is introduced to the technique of limiting questions. Personally, I have found that novice researchers often attempt to investigate far too large of an issue – attempting to describe every desk in the classroom, rather than one individual seat – so to speak. The inclusion of limiting questions, I believe, at the very least reminds the student to narrow his or her focus to make it not only a stronger investigation, but also a project they can manage given their responsibilities in the school. Having regularly required new graduate students to complete action research, I recognize the substance of chapter 4, data collection and analysis, as the Mount Vesuvius of action research. One minor criticism of this chapter is the treatment of note taking. Even if dutiful professors require the text to be read prior to engaging in any study, there will always be the student who skims the book, paying most attention to those chapters which introduce the formation of the study. Only too late do students realize the necessity of keeping accurate field notes. The student would be better served by emphasizing the necessity of this step in the process in the same chapter that discusses the research plan. By formulating the habit of reflecting on the research process early, the skill may be more likely to become a rote part of the data collection and analysis stages. The final chapter combines writing the report, recording the study and publishing. The chapter gives extensive attention to publication, and for good reason. Because action research is a singular research effort, it is often criticized for lack of generalizability. However, in my experience, through careful publication, researchers can enable others to consider how either the research process or the focus of the study may be applicable to their own context. Given the demands on their time due to structured teaching schedules, students are understandably discouraged by the thought that they have to submit their work to a journal, or make a conference presentation. They often do not realize that “publishing” refers not only to printed matter, but to simply making their work public, and they are encouraged to learn that a presentation to colleagues at a faculty meeting can be considered publication. Hinchey’s addresses these forms of publication as well as the more traditional conference proposals and journal submissions. In the end, the reader should not be misled by the simple title chosen by the author. Action Research is far more than a perfunctory treatment of action research. True it is a brief treatment of a complex topic, but it is one that treats its readers, practicing classroom teachers, as intelligent adults. It does not assume for them, that they will find the discussion of key figures, history, and critical questions as the stuff of the ivory tower. Further, with its emphasis on the adaptation of action research to the teacher’s individual interests and context, it seems to echo the recommendations of Maxine Greene (2002): I would like to think of teachers moving the young into their own interpretations of their lives and their lived worlds, opening wider and wider perspectives as they do so. ..I would like to see teachers tapping the spectrum of intelligences, encouraging multiple readings of written texts and readings of the world. In “the shadow of silent majorities,” then, as teachers learning along with those we try to provoke to learn, we may be able to inspire hitherto unheard voices. (p. 111) Hinchey’s work endeavors to introduce some of the beautiful complexities of action research while still enabling the new researcher to learn the essence of the process so that she may pursue answers to those problems she believes will best meet the needs of her students – this day, this week, this year, and beyond. References Bartolome, L.I. (2002). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. In A. Darder, R.D. Torres & M. Baltodano (Eds.). Critical pedagogy: A reader (pp. 408-429). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Greene, M. (2002). In search of a critical pedagogy. In A. Darder, R.D. Torres & M. Baltodano (Eds.). Critical pedagogy: A reader (pp. 97-112). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Shor, I. and Freire, P. (2002). What are the fears and risks of transformation? In A. Darder, R.D. Torres & M. Baltodano (Eds.). Critical pedagogy: A reader (pp. 479-496). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. New York: Heinemann Educational Publishers. About the Reviewer Jennifer Mahon, PhD Assistant Professor, Sociocultural Education Department of Curriculum, Teaching & Learning University of Nevada, Reno