This article investigates the use of collaborative action research in both the development and evaluation of a project designed to develop inclusive practice in Early Years and childcare settings.The purpose of the evaluation was to ascertain how practitioners understand the term ‘inclusion’, how those understandings were translated into practice and how changes in that practice might be conceptualized and carried out.The article explores the use of facilitated collaborative action research as a core element in developmental evaluation. Reflecting on other approaches such as theory of change, it considers whether the use of action research supported the critical examination and development of a project, or whether, by being so similar in design, it constricted the evaluation in terms of reliability of data, accountability and providing a framework for planning and development.
Barthes, R. (1982) Camera Lucida. London: Jonathan Cape .
2.
Blalock, A. B. (1999) ‘Evaluation Research and the Performance Management Movement: From Estrangement to Useful Integration’ , Evaluation5(2): 117–149 .
3.
Blamey, A. and M. Mackenzie (2002) ‘Using a Theories of Change Approach: Examples from the Scottish Health Demonstration Projects’ , conference presentation, Belfas Healthy Cities, Belfast.
4.
Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall .
5.
Cartier-Bresson, H. (1989) ‘An Interview with Byron Dobell 1957’, in W. Manchester (ed.) In our Time: The World as seen by Magnum Photographers, pp. 424–425. London: W. W. Norton & Co. Inc .
6.
Chelimsky, E. and W. R. Shadish , eds (1997) Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Resource Book. London: SAGE .
7.
Connell, J. P. and A. D. Klem (2000) ‘You Can Get There from Here: Using a Theory of Change Approach to Plan Urban Education Reform’ , Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation11(1): 93–120 .
8.
Connell, J. P. and A. C. Kubisch (1998) Applying a Theories of Change Approach to the Design and Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects, and Problems. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute .
9.
Cook,T. D. (1997) ‘Lessons Learned in Evaluation over the Past 25 Years’, in E. Chelimsky and W. R. Shadish (eds) Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Resource Book, pp. 30–52. London: SAGE .
10.
Dahlberg, G. , P. Moss and A. Pence (1999) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Postmodern Perspectives. London: Falmer Press .
11.
DfEE (1997) Excellence for All Children. London: DfEE Publications Centre .
12.
DfEE (1998) Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action. London: DfEE Publications Centre .
13.
Eisner, E. W. (1991) The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan .
14.
Eisner, E. W. (1998) ‘The Primacy of Experience and the Politics of Method’ , Educational Researcher17(5): 15–20 .
15.
Elliott, J. (1982) ‘Action-Research: A Framework for Self-Evaluation in Schools’, Working Paper No. 1 in R. Winter (ed.) Learning from Experience: Principles and Practice in Action-Research. London: Falmer Press .
16.
Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change: Developing Teachers and Teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press .
17.
Eraut, M. (2000) ‘The Intuitive Practitioners: A Critical Overview’, in T. Atkinson and G. Claxton (eds) Claxton (eds) The Intuitive Practitioner: On the Value of Not Always Knowing What One is Doing, pp. 253–268. Buckingham: Open University Press .
18.
Guba, E. G. (1990) ‘The Alternative Paradigm Dialogue’, in E. G. Guba (ed.) The Paradigm Dialogue, pp. 17–27. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
19.
House, E. (1990) ‘Realism in Research’ , Educational Researcher20(5): 2–9 .
20.
Kagan, S. L. (1998) ‘Using a Theory of Change Approach in a National Evaluation of Family Support Programs’, in K. Fulbright-Anderson , A. C. Kubisch and J. P. Connell (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol. 2, Theory, Measurement, and Analysis, pp. 113–121. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Roundtable .
21.
Kazi, M. A. F. (2003) Realist Evaluation in Practice: Health and Social Work. London: SAGE .
22.
Kemmis, S. and R. McTaggert , eds (1988) The Action Research Planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press .
23.
MacDonald, B. (1977) ‘A Political Classification of Evaluation Studies’, in D. Hamilton , D. Jenkins , C. King , B. MacDonald and M. Parlett (eds) Beyond the Numbers Game, pp. 224–227. London: Macmillan .
24.
Marra, M. (2004) ‘The Contribution of Evaluation to Socialization and Externalization of Tacit Knowledge: The Case of the World Bank’ , Evaluation10(3): 263–284 .
25.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: UNHCR .
26.
Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. London: Macmillan .
27.
Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE .
28.
Polanyi, Michael (1967) The Tacit Dimension. New York: Anchor Books .
29.
Scriven, M. (1997) ‘Truth and Objectivity in Evaluation’, in E. Chelimsky and W. R. Shadish (eds) Evaluation for the 21st Century, pp. 477–500. London: SAGE .
30.
Somekh, B. (2002) ‘Inhabiting Each Other's Castles: Towards Knowledge and Mutual Growth through Collaboration’, in C. Day , J. Elliott , B. Somekh and R. Winter , Theory and Practice in Action Research: Some International Perspectives, pp. 79–104. Oxford: Symposium Books .
Stake, R. E. (1997) ‘Advocacy in Evaluation:A Necessary Evil?’, in E. Chelimsky and W. R. Shadish (eds) Evaluation for the 21st Century, pp. 470–476. London: SAGE .
33.
Stenhouse, L. , ed. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann .
34.
Stenhouse, L. , ed. (1980) Curriculum Research and Development in Action. London: Heinemann Educational .
35.
UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO .
36.
Weiss, C. (1995) ‘Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation in Complex Community Initiatives for Children and Families’, in J. Connell , A. Kubisch , L. Schorr and C. Weiss (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Communit Initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute .
37.
Whitehead, J. (1989) ‘Creating a Living Educational Theory from Questions of the Kind, “How do I Improve my Practice?”’ , Cambridge Journal of Education19(1): 41–52 .
38.
Winter, R. (2000) ‘“Truth or Fiction”: Problems of Validity and Authenticity in Narratives of Action Research’ , paper given at the Philosophy of Education Seminar European Education Research Association Conference, Edinburgh, Sept.
39.
Winter, R. (2002) ‘Managers, Spectators and Citizens: Where does “Theory” Come from in Action Research?’, in C. Day , J. Elliott , B. Somekh and R. Winter , Theory and Practice in Action Research: Some International Perspectives, pp. 27–44. Oxford: Symposium Books .
40.
Ziglio, E. (1996) ‘The Delphi Method and its Contribution to Decision-Making: Gazing into the Oracle’, in M. Adler and E. Ziglio (eds) The Delphi Method and its Application to Social Policy and Public Health, pp. 3–33. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers .
