Which way should I go now?
Developing the research design requires my reflexivity for both avoid bias and contextualize the positionalities (Archer, 2007; Yip, 2024; Creswell, 2013) of both my self and the participants. As Schön (1983) posits, I need to reflect both in (ontologically) and on (reflexively and epistemologically) this process, my current view being from the ‘swampy lowlands’ (Schön, 1983 in Cook, 2009, p. 279). However, before I can move on to higher ground, this ‘messy’ moment needs to be accounted for; omitting this would not ‘offer a true and honest picture of the research process’ (Ibid).
Selecting the most appropriate method for data collection is the dilemma I now find myself in. Whilst, interviews or focus groups may provide richer more nuanced data for thematic analysis, I am cognizant of the limitations of scale and reach that this will present, given the small scale nature and time limitations of this study. Creating questionnaires would potentially provide a greater reach and the possibility for anonymity which may yield more enlightening insights, without the risk of participants feeling obliged to provide the answers that I as the teacher/ researcher want to hear. Once the questions are designed the production and delivery of a digital form would be relatively easy, plus the pragmatics of asynchronous data collection will enable participants to respond when they can. Organizing time for interviews will present logistical issues, both for myself and for the participants.
Interviews, which can be understood as an empirical situations, should only function as a data collection tool for that which exists within that empirical situation (Alvesron, 2012, p. 9). However, research in itself should be treated as a pedagogy – a teaching moment (O’Reilly, 2025) and therefore the classroom where the intervention itself takes place would seem the most logical and ethical space in which to conduct an interview or focus group- especially if the artefact (see examples) can be used to stimulate the conversation in response to the (semi structured) questions. In terms of the time this would also mean using the opportunity of class time – as a reflective language development activity for the students and the possibility of an inclusive participative research which gives agency to the students to affect change in the curriculum. That said, the appeal of digital form remains.
From the beginning I have been open with the students about the process – and the fact that we don’t really know what will happen or how we are going to it. I frame it not as my research but rather our research, and with the aim of creating a space for ‘participatory action research’ (Lenette, 2024), I want to share the decision making at different stages of the research design. In conversation with a Chinese student I presented my dilemma and she suggested that a focus group would likely yield deeper insights as I would be able to elicit more from participants and they would be able to engage with each other’s responses (this cross-cultural spoken interactivity is also a key teaching aim of my lesson design).
Through conversation with colleagues and tutors at the workshop this week, I learn that others have similar dilemmas, but that in order to overcome my dilemma I could in fact simply employ both methods – this will give opportunity to as many students who wish to participate to do so (either anonymously or in person) to the possibility of gaining a more macro, quantitative picture as well as a more nuanced thematic analysis, the two data sets could even be compared against each other.
Whilst we still don’t know what will happen or how exactly we will get there, having reflected on this moment, I feel that I am more confident to begin the ascent into the foothills.
References:
Alverson, M. (2012) ‘Views on interviews: A skeptical review,’ in Interpreting Interviews, 9- 42, Sage ps://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446268353
Cook, T. (2009) ‘The purpose of mess in action research: building
rigour though a messy turn,’ Educational Action Research, 17- (2)- 277-291, DOI:
10.1080/09650790902914241
Creswell, J. W. (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Lenette, C. (2024) PAR: Participatory action research. August 2024 (Available at: https://moodle.arts.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/2190224/mod_folder/content/0/Lenette%20%282024%29%20PAR%20%28Video%29.mp4?forcedownload=1 (Accessed 25 October 2025).
O’Reilly J. (2025) Workshop 1: Action research project, 2025-26 PG Cert Academic Practice. London College of Communication, 26 September 2025
Schön, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Yip, S.Y. (2024) ‘Positionality and reflexivity: negotiating insider-outsider positions within and across cultures’ International Journal of Research & Method in Education Vol 47-Issue 3-pp.222-232