Research in Dance Education, 2015

Vol. 16, No. 1, 16–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14647893.2014.971231

Dance education action research: a twin study

Miriam Giguere*

Performing Arts, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

(Received 16 June 2014; final version received 16 September 2014)

In this article, the author compares the practices, philosophy, and history of
action research, also known as participatory action research, to the purposes and
practices of dance education. The comparison yields connections in four catego-
ries, enhancing self-reflective teaching and curriculum design, taking responsibil-
ity for teaching outcomes, giving voice to dance students and teachers, and
adding to the body of rigorous dance research. The author suggests that this form
of practice-centered research in dance will improve and make transparent the
teaching practices of dance educators. This opens the possibility for not only
improved practices, but also the social responsibility of empowering the partici-
pants in dance education, including children. The author further discusses the
need for using this established qualitative research framework in studying dance
education to lend credibility and rigor to the field and its literature.
Keywords: dance education; action research; empowerment; self-reflective;
teaching; qualitative research

Introduction
As a child, I was always fascinated with twin studies, which examined identical
twins growing up in different households, even different cultures, retaining unex-
plainable similarities. While these studies intended to address the age-old debate of
nature vs. nurture, I found them equally fascinating for the imaginative paradigm
itself: what if I have an identical twin somewhere, being shaped by different con-
texts and influences that eerily mirror my own existence? Such is the situation
between the long-lost twins of action research and dance education.
These two activities have the same essential genetic make-up. They are both a
participatory investigation of an idea, activity, or cultural context. Both use lived
experience to understand and make discoveries. Both are dependent on reflection to
maintain rigor and integrity. They have grown up, however, in different households;
one under the roof of research paradigms, the other under the shelter of arts educa-
tion. By taking a philosophical and historical look at action research, we may be
able to locate practices for research in dance education.

Defining action research: five key factors

As with dance itself, the exact definition of action research can be somewhat elusive.
The method or methods closely linked to it are also known as practice-led research,

*Email: [email protected]

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 Research in Dance Education 17

practice-based research, practitioner research, and participatory action research. It is

a ‘form of on the job research, undertaken by people in any context regardless of
their status, position, age or previous experience. It involves you thinking carefully
about what you are doing, so it becomes critical self-reflective practice’ (McNiff
2013, 23). In many ways, action research is less a specific method and more a com-
mitment to personal accountability, equality of voice, and inclusion of contextual
factors in your research. The practices of action research are all designed to demon-
strate these beliefs. The validity of the method includes disclaiming your values and
examination as to whether or not you follow what you espouse.
Action research – one of the key factors – however, is not only about examining
yourself or your own practices, but it is also about empowering those with whom
you share the experiences under scrutiny. In dance education, for example, this
means giving weight to the experiences of the students in your classroom and not
just looking at the pedagogy or teaching practices from the teacher’s perspective.
Empowerment of the members of the community in which the research takes place
is one of the key factors of action research. Glassman and Erdem (2014) go so far
as to state that participatory action research ‘is a means for empowering those who
have been marginalized within their own social histories’ (11). In my own research
practices (Giguere 2011a, 2011b, 2011c), I frequently ask myself if I have the right
or responsibility, or neither, through my research to speak for the children with
whom I am working. I am particularly aware of this when my teaching is situated in
a community setting or with differently abled populations. In these instances, I am
often of a different level of mobility or of a different socio-economic or ethnic back-
ground from those with whom I am working, so my personal voice and frame of ref-
erence diverge even more from the group. It is particularly clear in these situations
that my authority to speak for or about a population needs to be tempered with a
deference to the voices of the actual participants.
Both self-examination and the scrutiny of those who are part of your activity
revolve around participation. What is it like to be a part of the phenomenon under
study? Someone who has never danced before may be able to take a clinical per-
spective on the pursuit, but may not be able to fully describe the richness of the
activity. In the words of Stephens, Barton, and Haslett (2009) ‘human reality
becomes largely known through participation in it’ (467). I find it interesting to note
that this is not a common feature of most scientific research paradigms, although the
professed purpose of many of these studies is to understand ‘human reality.’ As
Reason and Heron (1995) remark:
Since scientific research is such a powerful force in our lives it is shocking that its
techniques largely ignore the epistemological and political significance of participation.
(122)
This statement calls for us as dance educators to increase the body of research avail-
able in our discipline, since who better than its practitioners to study it deeply for its
own benefit? This is not to say that outside objectivity would not also be valuable
for dance education research. Participants and practitioners can have a point of view
that is difficult to bracket out in a research study and the outside eye of a
dispassionate researcher can be an illuminating one. I am suggesting, however, that
dance educators are a barely tapped resource for expanding research in our disci-
pline. We not only have unique skills to conduct this research as participants in the
activity, but also a vested interest in developing the body of research in our area.
18 M. Giguere

Another key factor is the recursive or iterative nature of the process. Action
researchers follow a cycle of observation, questioning, data gathering, analysis, and
action planning that results in a new observation which will then be questioned.
The most common steps to systematic design in action research (McNiff 2013)
are, to:

(1) Identify a research issue.

(2) Formulate a research question.
(3) Explain why the issue is important.
(4) Monitor practice and gather data to show what the situation is like.
(5) Take action.
(6) Continue to gather data and generate evidence.
(7) State the findings so far and make a provisional claim.
(8) Test the validity of the claim.
(9) Explain the significance of the research.
(10) Decide on potential future action, which may provide the basis for a new
investigation.

The above-described steps – which bear a striking resemblance to my choreographic

and curriculum design process as well as my research – are all situated in a context.
Action research takes place in actual practice, rather than in a carefully controlled or
artificial laboratory setting. It is ‘always socially, culturally, historically and politi-
cally situated, undertaken by a real person or persons, within a particular context for
a particular purpose’ (McNiff 2013, 38).
The data sources in this method are artifacts of the participants as well as the
researcher. These can include classroom observations, work samples, surveys, inter-
views, self-reflective comments, discussion transcripts, and videos (Henderson et al.
2007; Prevots 2009). These sources are personal and unique to the participants, and
therein lies their meaning. While many research procedures claim validity by virtue
of their impersonal nature, this distance, in fact, removes the contextual meaning of
the study. Making this an impersonal, and not a self-referential, procedure takes
away the meaningful foundation of the activity. The same can be said of the dance
education twin; when dance teaching becomes a standardized set of procedures with-
out consideration for the context of the learner, it is not meaningful education.
The fifth key or defining factor of action research, in addition to self-critique,
privileging the voice of your participants, participation, and iteration, is that the
research is about change and improvement. The motivations for undertaking this
research are an effort to improve on social, political, educational, or organizational
participatory contexts. This change can be on many scales, from the personal to the
national.
Reason and Bradbury (2008) describe a family of three approaches to action
research: first person, second person, and third person. First-person action research
is when an individual participant reflects on his or her own personal practice. Sec-
ond-person action research happens when people inquire about others, and about
addressing areas of mutual concern. Third-person action research is an individual
researching with a wider community. Noffke and Somekh (2009) refer to these same
three categories, giving them the labels – personal, professional, and political.
Examples of action research studies in dance that fit each of these models are pro-
vided in the inset boxes.
 Research in Dance Education 19

Inset box 1

First-Person Action Research Study in Dance

Stark, K. K. 2009. “Connecting to Dance: Merging Theory and Practice.” Journal of
Dance Education 9 (2): 61–68.
This study examines the author’s experiences in co-teaching a week–long course of dance
appreciation at the University of North Carolina Greensboro on Yvonne Rainer’s Trio A.
According to Stark ‘the author’s thinking shifted from critical analysis of her students,
what they had missed and what they had learned, to critical analysis of herself as a tea-
cher and choreographer’ (61).
In this study, the author reflects on her personal practice through transcriptions of her
three classes, as well as observation sheets from the student participants. Her conclusions
refer back to adjustments in her teaching practices as well as observations about what is
actually being taught in the course, particularly concerning connecting to dance, alongside
the predetermined objectives of the course.

Inset box 2

Second-Person Action Research Study in Dance

Giguere, M. 2011. “Dancing Thoughts: An Examination of Children’s Cognition and
Creative Process in Dance.” Research in Dance Education 12 (1): 1–24.
In this study, the author gathers interview and observational data on children making
dances in an elementary school during the course of the author’s Artist in Residence guest
teaching in a Pennsylvania public elementary school. The fifth-grade participants create
group dances over a two-week period. The study seeks to describe the cognitive and
social activity in embodied group creative projects in an effort to ‘examine pedagogical
practices that bring out the cognitive benefits of dance making’ (1).
The author is inquiring about the practices of others, in this case, school children, with an
area of mutual concern, that is the value of integrating the dance into elementary school
curriculum to enhance thinking skills and give voice and validity to the depth of the par-
ticipating students’ cognitive experiences.

Inset box 3

Third-Person Action Research Study in Dance

Henderson, C., D. Fraser, S. Cheesman, and S. Tyson. 2007. “Developing Non-verbal
Ways of Knowing in Dance: Collaborative School/University Action Research.” Waikato
Journal of Education 13: 243–252.
The researchers conducted a two-year study in eight New Zealand primary schools on
dance, drama, music, and visual art to investigate the non-verbal aspects of each art form.
Their data consisted of classroom observations, work samples, surveys, interviews, and
reflective self-study comments. The researchers concluded that ‘movement can be used as
the primary expressive mode of communication, as opposed to privileging the spoken
word’ (243).
In this study, the researchers consist of both the teacher-researchers and university
research partners who seek to create a model of providing feedback and feed forward in
the dance classroom. One stated aim was to build capacity for arts research amongst uni-
versity and teacher partners, taking the effect of the study to a wider community.
20 M. Giguere

As you can see, each of these styles of action research has a logical connection
to dance education practices. Stark’s first-person study, summarized in Inset box 1,
shows an example of how a self-study can lead an instructor to refine her practices
and examine her choices in creating course objectives. It is the deep and systematic
examination of her practice and its effect on her teaching practices that takes her
self-reflection into the realm of research. Action research that deals with areas of
concern outside of personal practice, but within areas of mutual concern character-
izes an area of large potential for dance research. The example in Inset box 2 looks
at the nature of creative practices of children, an area that is of considerable interest
and concern for many dance educators, particularly those working in K-12 settings
or in pre-professional studios. Second-person or professional action research gives
us the opportunity to examine not only our own teaching, but also the populations
with whom we are performing and teaching. As the study illustrated in Inset box 3
shows, third-person or political action research could speak more broadly to advo-
cacy in dance education. By researching the larger impact of dance and the arts on a
wider community, for example, dance researchers could build the resources and doc-
umentation needed to design change and to advocate for the place of dance in our
schools. This kind of action research also taps into the rich tradition of using dance
to advance causes of social justice (e.g. Risner and Stinson 2010).

Defining dance education: purposes and practices

While a history of dance education is beyond the scope of this article, a basic defini-
tion may help in framing the connections with action research. Throughout this
paper, the term ‘dance education’ will be used broadly to describe teaching and
learning practices in dance. These practices in dance are sometimes divided along
the lines of training vs. education. Training refers to the preparing of dancers for a
performing career by learning specific skills with the aim of mastery (Koff 2000).
Dance education, in this context, refers to the development of self-expression and
self-knowledge through an understanding of the elements of dance, including time,
space, and energy (Purcell 1994). Each of these ways of approaching the teaching of
dance has a multitude of techniques and methodologies associated with them. These
methods are based in philosophical underpinnings as broadly divergent as didacti-
cism and constructivism. Since both dance training and education are vibrant and
important parts of the dance field – and in many instances, are intertwined practices
– the terms dance and dance education should be considered inclusive of both these
ideas throughout this article.
The purposes of dance education are as multitudinous as its practices. Theorists
and practitioners tout the virtues of dance in developing self-esteem, motor learning,
communication skills, abstract thinking, catharsis, self-expression, cultural knowl-
edge, spirituality, and the creation of art as well as a host of other physical, cogni-
tive, cultural, and emotional benefits (Hanna 1999). Unlike action research, it would
be difficult to identify one philosophical orientation that guides all of dance educa-
tion or dance practices, except for a connection to the body. My purpose in writing
this fictitious twin study is to examine action research and its relevance and value to
dance education, rather than to see the two as strictly parallel. Perhaps my ‘long
lost twins’ are really simply cousins who would benefit from a closer family
relationship.
 Research in Dance Education 21

Philosophical underpinnings of action research

Research is an opportunity to process and to understand our experiences in the
world. Many performers, choreographers, dance students, and audience members
would also describe the art form of dance in this same way. How we approach both
of these activities depends on a number of factors, including our world view. Lack-
off and Johnson (1999) define world view as
A constant constellation of concepts, especially metaphorical concepts over one or
more conceptual domains. Thus one can have philosophical, moral and political world-
views. Worldviews govern how one understands the world and therefore deeply influ-
ence how one acts. (511)
Reflecting on our own or others’ behaviors is not a neutral activity. We understand
what we observe and experience in the world through a lens of our world view. The
self-reflective practice of action research, therefore, begins with an examination of
our world view. Do you expect there to be knowable truths in the world that
research is tasked with discovering? How do you value your own observations of
the world and what place does logic have in building understanding?
To simplify a complex history of philosophical thought, it can be suggested that
Pythagoras in ancient Greece believed in using observation as a way of seeing pat-
terns in the world, thereby developing theories of reality. Socrates, not entirely trust-
ing this inductive way of reasoning, introduced the formation of hypotheses, which
could be developed and then tested with logic. Aristotle advanced this method rely-
ing more and more on the rigor of argument to make discoveries about the realities
of the world (Webb 2001). While observation in a natural context was the initial
activity that gave birth to scientific research methodology, its relative importance
waned as the scientific method came to depend on the testing of discrete theoretical
hypotheses under sterile laboratory conditions (Stephens, Barton, and Haslett 2009).
Observation remains a key component of research, in general, although the
observation of phenomena in context shifted in the objectivist paradigm. Scientific
methodology moved away from observing the patterns of the world in its original
complex context, in favor of the more accepted and quantifiable methods for looking
at phenomena in isolation. To me, this is akin to the experience of teaching choreog-
raphy. Students can be reluctant to use novel or idiosyncratic movement and rely
heavily on classical or established movement vocabulary. Perhaps, this is because it
is easier to quantify its success. Looking at the discrete elements of the piece, that
can be evaluated against concrete technical criteria, rather than including movement
that can only be understood in the context of the dance feels safer and more
accepted to the student choreographer. Like quantitative data analysis, using estab-
lished technical movement vocabulary is recognized by the general public as an
accomplishment.
A more sterile scientific method is also favored over participatory research in
many people’s opinions because it relies less on the senses or sensory experiences in
the world and more on the mind. Empirical research is based in a Newtonian –
Cartesian world view, which sees the natural world as a series of interrelated parts
whose relationship is often causal. In other words, if you affect one part, you will
cause a predictable response in another part. While there is an appealing logic to this
Newtonian portion of the world view, it is also frequently linked to the idea of the
Cartesian dualism, a concept more difficult for dancers to embrace. Cartesian dual-
ism refers to the philosophical conclusion of Rene Descartes, the father of modern
22 M. Giguere

philosophy, who believed that the mind and body were separate entities, operating
on separate planes. He believed in a real distinction between the mind and the soul,
and the human body (Descartes 1984). This split of mind and body embraced supe-
riority of the mind and gave rise to the dualism of modern philosophical thought,
that is that the world could be understood through binaries.
While Descrates’ views are sometimes contentious and there is admittedly a
range of possible ways to interpret them, the division of mind and body and a
dichotomization of reality is still present in much Western intellectual thought
(Bayne, Cleeremans, and Wilken 2010). This is the school of thought that develops
research methods with experimental and control groups, where validity is evaluated
through replicability, generalizability, and objectivity (McNiff 2013). Sensory input
takes a back seat in this method, as does social context. While there may be many
phenomena in the body, for example, response to drugs in the bloodstream, that are
made clear by this kind of research paradigm, much of what I am interested in
understanding about the value of dance in education falls outside the purview of
objectivist scientific research, certainly those studies designed with experimental and
control groups. My recent research investigations have been focused on asking ques-
tions about the social context of learning in dance (Giguere 2011a). What happens
when dancers create together? How does the group aesthetic develop and how does
the negotiation of it create new ideas and a sense of belonging? How are these social
and cognitive skills applicable in our educational system and our society? Admit-
tedly, some researchers might approach these topics from a quantitative perspective
and generate valid information, but my interest in emphasizing and understanding
the context in which dance creation takes place makes these less appropriate choices
for me as a researcher.
This kind of thinking is referred to as a contextualist approach. This is a world
view akin to American pragmatism, which values purposeful human experiences. It
sees the context of an action as central to understanding the action. According to
Stephens, Barton, and Haslett (2009), this is the predominant contemporary world
view. Furthermore, according to these same researchers, ‘Action Research recog-
nizes and integrates the influence of the environment into the enquiry process’
(Stephens, Barton, and Haslett 2009, 473). If this is the case, then adopting the cen-
tral importance of the context and the ability of the researched to be agents in
describing and shaping their own context brings research into a more contemporary
time frame. We do not need to hang on to paradigms rooted in antiquity to make
discoveries about our current world. It is not a question of what is the most valid
research that science has to offer; rather, it is a question of what is the most appro-
priate. Action research still involves the formulation and investigation of hypotheses,
but these hypotheses are based on sensory input and contextual observation and par-
ticipation, rather than on an isolated exercise of the mind. Like dance itself, of
course, research is a broad umbrella that covers many questions about the world and
many points of view. Older, more-established research paradigms may fit a range of
research scenarios related to dance, but there are many more that require an
acknowledgment of context for which action research seems particularly well suited.
I should make clear that I do not discourage nor disparage objectivist research. I do
feel, however, that I am like many dance educators who might be disinclined to
conduct research studies if I had to design them exclusively from an objectivist
perspective with experimental and control groups, rather than researching my own
 Research in Dance Education 23

natural practices in context. My particular constructivist world view predisposes me

toward qualitative contextually driven research methods.
The contextualist approach, of course, is not without its difficulties. Action
research most often does not develop results that are measured by statistical signifi-
cance, a fact which some academics find less than persuasive. (See Winner and
Hetland example below.) Additionally, some contexts are exceptionally complex and
may be difficult to deconstruct and make transparent by the participants in the com-
munity. Certainly, no one set of participants can be aware of everything that is hap-
pening in their own community. The question for me is not what is the best research
method in a general sense, but the most appropriate considering the researcher’s
world view and goals of the process.
Another important distinction with regard to the testing of hypotheses in action
research is that these hypotheses do not result from testing a pre-existing theory.
Rather, theory is developed as a result of the cycle of observation and hypothesis
testing. Theory dominates practice in empirical research, in action research this is
reversed, and practice dominates theory building. This coupled with a perceived lack
of rigor in design may be one of the reasons that qualitative research is sometimes
marginalized by mainstream academics. Harvard psychologists and educational
researchers Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland, for example, eliminate all research that
do not have a control and experimental group in their ‘comprehensive and exhaus-
tive’ (Winner and Hetland 2000, 3) meta-analytic study of academic achievement
and study in the arts. Their conclusions on dance show little evidence of transfer
(Keinänen, Hetland, and Winner 2000), perhaps because by design, the studies that
included a contextual or qualitative approach to the phenomenon of academic
achievement through dance study were excluded from analysis.

History of action research

The history of action research can be traced back to the early twentieth century by
looking at the writings of landmark educator Dewey (1915, 1938, 1943). Dewey’s
concept of progressive education maintained that action was the test of comprehen-
sion and believed that education should be child centered. The beliefs and practices
of this progressive model gave American school children, who were the subject of
study, power in the educational paradigm. Action, in this model, was privileged over
rote learning. These ideas are the foundation of action research in education, a field
in which it enjoys a rich history and is still a popular methodology today. Dewey’s
ideas of understanding experience through physical action also laid the foundation
for early dance integration in public education.
We begin to see action research studies in other fields, and the refinement of the
method by the mid-1940s. Collier, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the Uni-
ted States developed a research practice to understand and make clear the issues
associated with Native Americans that involved a recursive pattern of action and
reflection (1945). His hope was that this cycle of action planning, implementation,
and reflection would not only provide an opportunity to understand the people he
was studying and makes their needs visible, but would also bring improvement to
their lives. His model was taken up by Lewin, whose studies of industrial productiv-
ity became what he termed a democratic practice for self-determination (Lewin
1946). By the 1950s, the model was seen in a more refined form by a number of
24 M. Giguere

researchers including Corey (1953), who used the term in the title of his volume
Action Research to Improve School Practices.
The 1960s saw a tremendous shift in the purpose of action research. As the race
to space accelerated, the empirical scientific model became refined and the preferred
method of research in science. Action research, instead, became the vehicle for polit-
ical change, especially through the work of Brazilian theorist and activist Freire.
Renamed participatory action research, the method became a medium for instigating
democratic participation for disenfranchised or vulnerable groups and a way to
resolve conflict between the majority and minority populations. Freire’s approach to
the method stipulated two conditions, first that it be a rigorous process of cyclical
discovery and realization and second that it be a dialogue between researchers and
community that is non-hierarchical (1970). This shift in responsibility from the
researcher to the population that is being researched is a significant and important
development in action research. The power to make judgments and action plans as a
result of the reflective cycle of the research belongs to the population under study,
and not to a class of intellectual outsiders. In this way, action research becomes
about the development of personal responsibility, something we often claim is a ben-
efit of dance study in schools (e.g. Hanna 1999). Outside of the educational system,
the comparison between dance and action research in this realm is valid as well. In
private studio settings as well as in schools, dance educators make their students
responsible for their own learning in many ways. Many assign solo or group pro-
jects, such as choreography or improvisation, where the students are responsible for
a personal creative product in which they are leaders and their peers become a med-
ium of expression. Other teachers require students to develop personal learning goals
based on self-reflection against which they are assessed. Advanced dancers have
learned from their teachers that ultimately each body has unique needs and talents
that only the dancers themselves can actualize. Even something as simple as report-
ing an injury to your teacher or learning to modify movement in the interest of your
own self-care becomes an act of personal responsibility and reflection.
By the 1970s, this idea would take hold in the educational research realm as
well. Theorist Lawrence Stenhouse described teaching and research as related activi-
ties bound together by critical reflection. He believed this kind of thinking was actu-
ally curriculum theorizing and called on teachers to engage in it. He promoted the
idea of the ‘extended professional’ (1975), that is the classroom teacher herself as
the researcher and agent of change in the classroom, rather than relying on outside
researchers to take on this role. It is precisely this idea that action research can neu-
tralize the academic hierarchies of researcher and teacher, which led to its struggles
for legitimacy in the 1980s. There was a question that teachers themselves could
generate theory, although researchers were calling for the refinement of a reflective
practitioner (Schön 1983).
Greater epistemological shifts benefited action research toward the end of the
twentieth century and into the beginning of our current century. The concept that
knowledge is socially developed gained wider acceptance in the academic world
(Brown and Duguid 2000), and this paved the way for the scholarship of teaching
or the systematic study of teaching practices. Elliot, another instrumental educational
researcher, advocated for this model, calling the role a ‘self-monitoring teacher’
(1991). Elliot describes these kinds of educators as those who not only reflect on
their own practices, but also use research findings to forge new methodological
directions. These findings are developed in the context of the teachers’ own prac-
 Research in Dance Education 25

tices and transcend the context of outsider research. This places the authority for
educational theory making on the teacher in the classroom, who can acknowledge
her role in the power dynamics of the classroom (Elliot 1991).
This is akin to the advocacy for a feminist pedagogy in dance championed by
Stinson, where the teacher is responsible for understanding and responding to power
dynamics in the classroom. In her landmark essay A Feminist Pedagogy for Chil-
dren’s Dance (1998), Stinson encourages teachers to apply critical self-reflection to
their practices and break the cycle of hierarchical power domination by the teacher,
in favor of a pedagogy that moves students toward greater responsibility for their
own learning, making connections with others, and less dependence on the instruc-
tor.
In the twenty-first century, practices in action research have proliferated and frag-
mented. Participatory action research, autoethnography, organizational action
research, for example, have ‘fragmented the field through tribalism’ (McNiff 2013,
6). The concern is that this fragmentation weakens the field into a common denomi-
nator of storytelling, and that this domestication moves the field away from theory
generation. While action research has made public the need to level the hierarchies
between researcher and subjects, its goal of equalizing who gets to make theory is
as yet unrealized, at least for dance. McNiff (2013) calls for the next iteration of the
field to create living theory that is both fluid and personal which makes space for
people to create ‘mutually negotiated identities’ (66). It seems that dance as a field
would benefit from this theory building more than most. In a field such as ours,
where European classical traditions have dominated our studios and consequently
much of our aesthetic theorizing, it may be time to position ourselves for more glob-
ally inclusive theory building through the leveling of these hierarchies.

Role of the researcher as an agent of change

Action Research is about thinking before taking action. As I begin my own research
investigations, I think first about the context and responsibilities I have as a
researcher. As a university faculty member instructing undergraduate dancers, I am
aware that my social and political context means that I am educating those privi-
leged to engage in higher education. As we begin to investigate the dance experi-
ences of urban children, or children with special needs, or as I prepare to teach
using my research findings, I ask myself how I am presenting the ‘other’ of my
research. Can I allow these children to present themselves through the research
study? Can their experiences, as opposed to my view of their experiences, have
weight in the research? In many ways, these questions are of equal importance to
whatever discoveries or changes result for the population I am studying. Action
research is intended to foster change in the participants, but those who read the
reports of this research are outside the community. I value the idea that my college
students understand the perspective of the participants when they read these studies
and recognize that while they may be future agents of change, they are doing so
from outside the community under study. As an educator of prospective teachers, I
find myself under the additional responsibility of fostering identity development in
my college students that includes an acceptance of themselves as helpers in the
world, who value the voice of those they are helping as much as their own. Action
research allows me to frame my findings in this way.
26 M. Giguere

One additional reason that my questions about my role as a dance educator and
researcher may not be adequately addressed by traditional positivist investigations is
the concentration of power, in empirical research, in the role of the researcher. The
researcher sets up the conditions of the experiment and makes all of the judgments
about the results. Participants are not seen as agents in what is learned from the
research. In contrast, interpretive or interpretative research paradigms, including
action research, acknowledge that the participants in the study are contributors to the
enquiry. While not all methods under this world view, such as case studies, for
example, include the voice of the researched as a primary interpreter of the data, this
is still research that includes an awareness of historical, social, and cultural influ-
ences on the phenomenon under study.
Ontologically, action research is based on the belief that all people have the right
to create their own identities. This is also a central tenet of much dance education. I
have heard many dance advocates promote the use of dance in schools on the logic
that it builds confidence and a sense of understanding yourself. This may be where
action research and dance education come together the most; both value sensory,
embodied experience as a way of understanding the world and finding your place
and power in it. Knowledge, from this perspective, is not a fixed entity; it is some-
thing that is in a constant state of development. This means that the researcher is not
so much a discoverer of truths as an agent of change. As an insider to the phenome-
non under study the action, researcher gives voice to the participants to be self-criti-
cal and inspire change in their own practices. As McNiff explains about action
research:
It involves commitment to the idea that learning will transform into purposeful per-
sonal and community action for social benefit with potential implication for non-human
and environmental benefit. (28)
Working in a research paradigm that values the voices of the participants as
much as the voice of the researcher means relinquishing your role as lone ultimate
expert. You must share this identity with the people you are studying. This is again
where the fundamental similarity in the make-up of our twins becomes apparent. As
a dance educator, as well as a researcher, I do not see myself as the expert in the
room, I see myself more as the experienced guide. My job is to lead my students in
building their own understandings of the world, not to supply those understandings
for them. This obligates me to support my students with tools, resources, and confi-
dence to experiment more than with immutable facts. My constructivist philosophy
as a teacher is often at odds with the traditional master – apprentice model that is
still alive in many dance schools, companies, and conservatories. Certainly, honoring
children and empowering them through learning is not always the ethos of public
education either, where children are frequently still referred to as being acted upon.
Not espousing the predominant theory and instead, favoring humanism has been a
tradition in dance education. The trail-blazing American dance educator Margaret
H’Doubler pioneered ideas regarding self-actualization for women in higher educa-
tion long before these concepts were the accepted social norms (Ross 2000). Using
action research to make transparent our processes and to maintain rigor in our teach-
ing may be the next step in this legacy.
 Research in Dance Education 27

Discussion: what we can learn from this twin study

Aside from similarities between action research and dance education, revealed by
this twin study, we can also consider ways in which dance research could be
enriched by action research and vice versa. First, what can we learn from the meth-
ods, philosophy, and history of action research that will enrich the life of its relative,
dance education? There are many ways in which this practice-centered research can
contribute to the teaching, learning, and assessing of dance. These fall under four
categories: enhancing self-reflective teaching and curriculum design, taking responsi-
bility for teaching outcomes, giving voice to dance students and teachers, and add-
ing to the body of rigorous dance research.

Enhancing self-reflective teaching and curriculum design

A dance educator who decides to participate in an action research study has already
made the decision to engage in understanding his or her practices, and this basic act
of initiating the research begins the process of self-reflectivity. This alone is of bene-
fit to the field. Whether as a young teacher respecting or admiring the practices of
her teachers in the past or as a practiced teacher resting on her experience, many
teachers fall into unexamined teaching habits. By questioning these practices, we
enter into a new frame of thinking about the experiences we have with our students
in the studio. If I take on the position of a researcher, I begin to ask questions about
process, engagement, and outcomes. While these are always considerations for any
good teacher, my perspective as a participant researcher questions the interconnec-
tion of these three elements. Are all of the parts of my process actually engaging the
students for the outcomes I seek? Do I include exercises or use language in my class
out of habit or convenience, which have unintended consequences? Several recent
researchers (Henderson et al. 2007; Stark 2009) remind us that we cannot make
assumptions about what is being learned in a dance classroom and we need to ques-
tion what it is that we are actually teaching. This questioning, when structured as
part of an action research study may illuminate the effectiveness of specific practices
which, in turn, can guide the development of new methods and curriculum.
Research gives us the ability to shape curriculum based on desired outcomes, rather
than habits or traditions. Action research can also be a way to test new teaching
methods and assess their effectiveness. The research report that ensues from the
study of that new practice could enhance the work of many teachers because not
only the practice itself, but also a reflective evaluation of the method in context
would be shared.

Taking responsibility for teaching outcomes

Understanding more about our teaching in dance leads us to taking responsibility for
what we are teaching. It allows us to embrace the complexity and ambiguity of real-
life situations by removing the assumption that there is one correct way of teaching
dance and structuring pedagogy that is unique to the context of our teaching. There
is comfort in knowing that what you are teaching is related to a standard or meets
the satisfaction of some larger portion of the field, but there is also the reality of
meeting students where they are and the depth and value of appreciating and
respecting that. When I am teaching in an inner city community center, I am not
28 M. Giguere

worried about whether what I do would be recognized by a major ballet company,

but about the responsibility of it being the first formal training that a dancer has, and
whether or not I have taught them the power of embodied learning and ownership
of their own artistic voice. While I am still asking the question of how others judge
my influence, action research privileges the answer from the dance students with
whom I am teaching and learning. This doesn’t mean that the larger contexts for
teaching, such as the standards and expectations of the field of dance, are not rele-
vant, on the contrary, it makes transparent my connection to these expectations
within the specific culture and environment of my teaching. Action research pro-
vides an opportunity to fully engage with the context of our teaching and to ask both
the specific and philosophical questions about its effectiveness. Dance does not exist
only in the abstraction of a textbook or a research study, but in thousands of specific
contexts. Conducting action research gives us the opportunity to recognize those
contexts and make our understanding of dance teaching and learning more relevant
to the actual students in our studios.

Giving voice to dance students and teachers

A hallmark of participatory action research is the empowerment of the participants.
This includes all members of the group under study, which, in dance education are
both the students and the teacher. I have frequently been impressed by new
approaches to material and innovative techniques in dance that I read about in jour-
nals or hear presented at conferences. Less frequently, however, do I hear how the
children feel about the integration of these new methods. Conducting research in our
own studios can shed light on the dance experience from the perspective of its most
important practitioners – the children in our classes. If dance reflects culture, then
the students in our classes – particularly in primary grades – embody a culture that
is a different from our own as adults. Action research gives us the opportunity to
decide if we are in fact enriching and empowering our students as we aim to do, by
looking closely at the their experiences through their voices.
As McNiff observes,
The responsibility of intellectuals, in my view, is to support others in creating their
own identities with critical discernment and to have the confidence and capacity to do
so. (McNiff 2013, 8)
In my view, this is an important purpose of dance education as well; researching,
documenting, and viewing what we do with critical rigor to create in children the
capacity and confidence to create their own identities. If we hope to claim that dance
builds self-esteem in children, then we need to give them agency over what is
reported regarding their experiences in the research about them.
It is not only the dance student, however, who can be empowered through this
kind of inquiry. Action research empowers teacher/practitioners to become theory
makers and intellectuals. Most theories in dance education are still coming from
sources in higher education because this is currently the locus of research proce-
dures. Professional academics, however, do not operate a monopoly on intellectual-
ism nor hold exclusive power to envision the field. If we abandon the objectivist
preconception that the only real research is done with control groups, then we can
open our field to more embodied thinkers and widen the embrace of voices in dance
education. As action research struggled for legitimacy in the 1980s, qualitative
 Research in Dance Education 29

dance education practitioners may continue to undergo marginalization as theorists,

but our engagement in this activity will nevertheless improve our teaching and cur-
riculum design as we strive for this recognition over time. Professional dancers and
choreographers have been accepted as valuable faculty alongside traditional academ-
ics in higher education. In time, I hope rigorous research done by practitioners and
the work of more traditionally trained scholars would gain the same level of credi-
bility and acceptance in our field.

Adding to the body of rigorous dance research

One final advantage of connecting dance education and action research is to add to
the body of extant research. Published research into dance education is a relative
new comer when compared with the body of academic discourse on education in
general. By expanding our pool of researchers to include practicing teachers, we
expand the body of literature that can be created not only in voice, but also in vari-
ety and in number. As Prevots (2009) noted, one value of action research in dance is
to expand the body of dance education research and to make what we do more visi-
ble both inside and outside the field. I would add that rigorous action research also
lends gravitas to our activities. While the goal of action research is to become aware
of how you think and use that knowledge to improve teaching and learning, rather
than to be an expert in a particular field, the rigor of the activity adds credibility to
what we do as dance educators to an outside public, who may not be aware of the
depth and richness of learning in dance. Action research gives us the opportunity to
let others know the complex context of learning and teaching in dance from an insi-
der’s point of view. We would have the opportunity to educate ourselves in our own
best practices while demonstrating to those outside the field that dance offers multi-
ple kinds of learning and accomplishment.

What can action research learn from dance?

All research methods develop and change as its practitioners adapt to new research
needs and contexts. If dance researchers were to embrace action research as a
method of choice, what might our particular contexts add to the research paradigm?
While a more comprehensive answer could be developed as the subject of another
analysis, even from this comparison, I can foresee two significant ways in which
dance might enrich action research, through its use of fantasy and metaphor and the
inclusion of non-verbal data.

Use of fantasy and metaphor

Dance communicates in a number of ways, including the use of fantasy and meta-
phor. Traditionally, action research looks at real-life situations and relationships
between participants. Dance is ripe with these situations, since its artistic medium is
the human body. Successful dancers and choreographers develop a particular sensi-
tivity to other people in a dance with them. But what of the abstracted world that is
created through dance? What if we were to use action research from the inside view
of a performer in creating a fantasy role? How does the ‘imaginative reality’ of a
dance, in Lackoff and Johnson’s terms (1980), use metaphor to communicate ideas?
Perhaps, dance action research could expand the scope of this method by looking at
30 M. Giguere

how change is facilitated through art and abstraction, as well as through social inter-
action.

Inclusion of non verbal data

While dance can be documented through journaling, interview, and other verbal
methods, it is essentially a non-verbal art form. What might the possibilities be with
today’s evolving technologies to gather and analyze movement data as part of an
action research study? While some videotaping and analysis of movement already
exists in action research studies (e.g. Giguere 2011c), I trust in the imagination and
ingenuity of dance education practitioners to take this further into non-verbal data
analysis and even the reporting of research results that can be widely shared. Dance
could bring an innovative somatic dimension to action research.

Summary
Dance education and action research share a common value for using our lived
experiences to investigate, understand, and make change in our world. Both require
structured self-reflection and believe that they can empower their practitioners to
make change in the world and have a voice in that change. These commonalities
make for a powerful potential for both entities. Action research can offer dance the
opportunity to enhance self-reflective teaching and curriculum design, to take
responsibility for our teaching outcomes, give voice to dance students and teachers
for the purposes of both curriculum design and theory building, and add to the body
of rigorous dance research. These are not insignificant advantages. Action research
too would benefit from more dance researchers in its ranks, particularly as we could
bring a somatic appreciation of the use of metaphor in effecting change and perhaps
a non-verbal means of data sourcing and analysis. Action research and dance educa-
tion share a reciprocity and connection that could benefit both sides of the family
tree.

Notes on contributor
Miriam Giguere holds a BA (Psychology) and MS (Education) from the University of
Pennsylvania, and a PhD (Dance) from Temple University. She directs the dance program at
Drexel University in Philadelphia. Her research focuses on creative process and children’s
dance. She received the 2009 AERA Arts and Learning SIG National Dissertation Award,
and was the keynote speaker for Dance Education Conference 2010 in Singapore. She is the
author of the textbook Beginning Modern Dance.

References
Bayne, T., A. Cleeremans, and P. Wilken, eds. 2010. The Oxford Companion to Conscious-
ness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, J. S., and P. Duguid. 2000. The Social Life of Information. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Collier, J. 1945. “United States Indian Administration as a Laboratory of Ethnic Relations.”
Social Research 12: 265–303.
Corey, S. 1953. Action Research to Improve School Practices. New York: Teachers College
Press.
 Research in Dance Education 31

Descartes, R. 1984. “Meditations on First Philosophy.” In The Philosophical Writings of Des-

cartes, edited by J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, and D. Murdoch, 1–50. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Dewey, J. 1915. Schools of Tomorrow. New York: Dutton.
Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Dewey, J. 1943. The Child of the Curriculum and the School and Society. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Elliot, J. 1991. Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
Giguere, M. 2011a. “Social Influences on the Creative Process: An Examination of Chil-
dren’s Creativity and Learning in Dance.” International Journal of Education and the
Arts 12 (SI 1.5). http://www.ijea.org/v12si1/.
Giguere, M. 2011b. “Dances for Children with Children, and by Children: Looking at Dance
through a Lens of Children’s Culture.” Journal of Dance Education 11 (3): 84–89.
Giguere, M. 2011c. “Dancing Thoughts: An Examination of Children’s Cognition and Crea-
tive Process in Dance.” Research in Dance Education 12 (1): 1–24.
Glassman, M., and G. Erdem. 2014. Participatory Action Research and Its Meanings: Viven-
cia, Praxis, Conscientization. Adult Education Quarterly Feb.: 1–16.
Hanna, J. L. 1999. Partnering Dance and Education: Intelligent Moves for Changing times.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Henderson, C., D. Fraser, S. Cheesman, and S. Tyson. 2007. “Developing Non-verbal Ways
of Knowing in Dance: Collaborative School/University Action Research.” Waikato Jour-
nal of Education 13: 243–252.
Keinänen, M., L. Hetland, and E. Winner. 2000. “Teaching Cognitive Skill Through Dance: Evi-
dence for Near but Not Far Transfer.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 34 (3–4): 295–307.
Koff, S. 2000. “Toward a Definition of Dance Education.” Childhood Education 77 (1):
27–32.
Lackoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Lackoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its
Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lewin, K. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues 2 (4):
34–46.
McNiff, J. 2013. Action Research Principles and Practice. Florence, KY: Routledge.
Noffke, S., and B. Somekh. 2009. The Sage Handbook of Education Action Research. Lon-
don: Sage.
Prevots, N. 2009. “Action Research and Dance Education.” Journal of Dance Education 9
(2): 39–40.
Purcell, T. 1994. Teaching Children Dance. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Reason, P., and H. Bradbury, eds. 2008. The Sage Handbook of Action Research. 2nd ed.
London: Sage.
Reason, P., and J. Heron. 1995. “Cooperative Inquiry.” In Rethinking Methods in Psychology,
edited by J. A. Smith, R. Harre, and L. Van Langenhove, 122–142. London: Sage.
Risner, D., and Stinson, S. W. (2010). “Moving Social Justice: Challenges, Fears and Possi-
bilities in Dance Education.” International Journal of Education & The Arts 11 (6).
http://www.ijea.org/v11n6/.
Ross, J. 2000. Moving Lessons: Margaret H’Doubler and the Beginning of Dance in Ameri-
can Education. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practioner. New York: Basic Books.
Stark, K. K. 2009. “Connecting to Dance: Merging Theory with Practice.” Journal of Dance
Education 9 (2): 61–68.
Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: He-
inemann.
Stephens, J., J. Barton, and T. Haslett. 2009. “Action Research: Its History and Relationship
to Scientific Methodology.” Systems Practice Action Research 22: 463–474. Springer.
32 M. Giguere

Stinson, S. 1998. “Seeking a Feminist Pedagogy for Children’s Dance.” In Dance Power and
Difference, edited by S. Shapiro, 23–48. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Webb, C. 2001. A History of Philosophy. Kitchemer: Batoche Books.
Winner, E., and L. Hetland. 2000. “The Arts in Education: Evaluating the Evidence for a
Causal Link.” The Journal of Aesthetic Education 34 (3–4): 3–11.
Copyright of Research in Dance Education is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.