CHAPTER 6. ANALYSIS MEETINGS
The analysis and interpretation of Phase Two data is covered in the next three chapters. Phase Two involved nine action research meetings involving myself and the seven CNL participants as an action research group. A tenth meeting was held to evaluate the process for us all. These meetings spanned from December 2005 to October 2006. We, as a group, considered, analysed and debated the reasonableness of the Phase One data derived from the seven individual interviews.
The action research cycle of planning, acting, observing and reflecting (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005) is illustrated in these three chapters. The turning points in the action research meetings with indicative content are captured drawing on the literature about action research to highlight what is happening. Direct quotations from the meeting, excerpts of meeting summary notes and observation and reflections made by myself are included. All of these illustrate when the action research group addressed an issue whilst continuing to research what is the role of CNL. This is also, as Coghlan and Brannick (2005) term, the “meta cycle of inquiry” (p. 25) whereby content, process and premise are all simultaneously attended to. The quotations from participants are in italics and direct quotations from my reflective journal are introduced as such. When using my own journal and reflections, a particular focus is on capturing my decisions, actions and thoughts as an insider, outsider, researcher and group participant.
This chapter covers meetings one to three as depicted in Figure 3. Meeting one was concerned with establishing the action research group an important turning point in the research where I was given the responsibility of ensuring balanced participation while also facilitating the group to take ownership of the project. The next meeting was the presentation of the 24 themes to the group. The inclusion of direct quotations from the meetings are evidence of, as Heron and Reason (2006) entitle, “authentic collaboration” (p. 150) and “challenging of consensus” (p. 150). The group was simultaneously deciding