The good fight: action research as resistance

ABSTRACT

What options are available for educational action researchers whose research proposals have been denied by an institutional review board (IRB)? This article introduces critical post-intentional phenomenological action research (CP-IPAR) as one remedy for such rejections. In the spirit of accidental ethnography, whereby unexpected, accidental events produce unintended data and findings, the authors, a doctoral candidate and dissertation chair, reflect on insights that emerged from the district-level rejection of Martin’s dissertation proposal. Together, the authors explore action research as a tool for resistance to this rejection, recounting how CP-IPAR allowed them to work through the district’s prohibition of traditional forms of action research. CP-IPAR’s examination of how events change with context dovetails with action research’s emphasis on recursive growth and amplifies the dialogue between action research and critical theory. We propose that CP-IPAR is an ideal methodology for conducting action research in restrictive environments, particularly for teacher-researchers whose work must be approved by both university and local school district review boards. This article situates the precipitating incident within scholarship on action research’s evolving relationship with institutional review, demonstrates how accidental ethnography created space for us to examine the incident generatively, and illustrates how CP-IPAR deepens our understanding of action research.

KEYWORDS:

• Post-intentional phenomenology
• IRB
• teacher action research
• accidental ethnography

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Geolocation data

33.99375945592575, −81.02988152020677

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.