Rauno Huttunen

Action research as narrative: five principles for validation

Along with the narrative turn in social sciences, the quality of research has become a more and more intricate issue. Action research reports are often narratives, located in the context of the evolving experiences of those involved. In this paper, the problem of quality in action research narratives is addressed, and some principles for assessing the quality of narrative research reports are proposed. The issue is explored both at a theoretical‐conceptual level and through a number of practical cases from the narrative‐biographical research project TeacherLife. As narrative researchers, the authors are not willing to accept an extremely relativistic stand. They argue the need for conceptual tools to grasp the problem of quality of narratives, but tools different from the traditional concepts of validity and reliability, which harbour markedly positivistic connotations. They propose five principles for judging the quality of action research from a narrative point of view. According to these principles, a good action research narrative firstly acknowledges the past course of events that have shaped the present practices (the principle of historical continuity). Secondly and thirdly, it is reflexive (the principle of reflexivity) and elaborates the story dialectically (the principle of dialectics). Fourthly, a decisive criterion for successful action research is that it produces some useable practices that, in one way or another, can be regarded as useful (the principle of workability). The authors agree with Aristotle, who claims that a good narrative involves a balance between ‘logos’, ‘ethos’ and ‘pathos’. They place emphasis on ‘ethos’ and ‘pathos’ through a principle of evocativeness. These criteria are not proposing as an established checklist, and the authors point to the overlap between some of them. They are drawn from experience in supervising action research projects, evaluating narrative reports and encouraging people to write authentic narratives of their research work.

This is My Truth, Tell Me Yours: Some Aspects of Action Research Quality in the Light of Truth Theories.

Abstract In this article the authors introduce some aspects of various truth theories in the context of action research. The traditional ways of determining quality are based on the correspondence theory of truth, which, in their view, conflicts with the basic assumptions of action research. The pragmatic theory of truth seems to be clearly represented in the world of action research. In their opinion, other theories of truth can be productively applied as well. In addition to the classical theories of truth – the correspondence theory, the coherence theory and the pragmatistic view on truth – they discuss the truth as ‘aletheia’ (a Heideggerian view on truth), as Habermasian consensus and as Foucaultian power/knowledge.

Action research and narrative inquiry: five principles for validation revisited

The article continues the discussion of the five quality principles proposed by Heikkinen, Huttunen, and Syrjälä, published in 2007 in Educational Action Research. In the present article, the authors reconsider the five principles: historical continuity; reflexivity; dialectics; workability; and evocativeness. These five principles are critically examined from two viewpoints. First, the authors discuss comments on the quality of the principles published in Educational Action Research, referring to contemporary discussion within the philosophy of science. Second, they review some empirical action research reports in which these principles have been applied. The authors point out some problems in applying these quality principles as well as successful ways of working with the principles.

Between facts and norms: action research in the light of Jürgen Habermas's theory of communicative action and discourse theory of justice1

Abstract An emphasis on democracy is typical of action research. Therefore, theories of modern democracy can be applied within the field of school development through action research. According to Jurgen Habermas, the promotion of democratic will formation requires the promotion of free and rational communicative action that is as free from manipulation as possible. Under ideal communicative conditions, consensus is achieved dialectically through the force of a better argument. The principles of rational argumentation have been developed in detail in Habermass publications on discourse ethics and in The Theory of Communicative Action. He has recently developed his approach in a book entitled Between Facts and Norms, to which theorists of action research have so far paid little attention. In this book, Habermas examines the possibilities for bridging the gap between actual norms and social acceptance of norms in modern society. In traditional society there was no gap between the facticity and the validity...

The Sartre‐Heidegger Controversy on Humanism and the Concept of Man in Education

Jean‐Paul Sartre claims in his 1945 lecture ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’ that there are two kinds of existentialism: that of Christians like Karl Jaspers, and atheistic like Martin Heidegger. Sartres ‘spiritual master’ Heidegger had no problem with Sartre defining him as an atheist, but he had serious problems with Sartres concept of humanism and existentialism. Heidegger claims that the essence of humanism lies in the essence of the human being. After the Enlightenment, the Western concept of man has been presented in education in the form of Kantian humanistic essentialism. At least in the Finnish educational system, Kantian humanism is almost an official ideological background of all national curriculums. Is such a kind of essentialism and metaphysics plausible in our modern or postmodern times? We examine the Sartre‐Heidegger controversy on humanism and the concept of man in education using Freires humanism and Gelassenheit education as exemplars.