See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283025755

Action research

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS
2 16,121

2 authors:

Brenda Nicodemus Laurie Swabey

Gallaudet University Saint Catherine University
29 PUBLICATIONS   335 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   147 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Perspectives about language direction and asymmetries from signed language interpreters in Switzerland and the United States View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brenda Nicodemus on 15 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

  

Nicodemus, B., & Swabey, L. (2015). Action research. In C. V. Angelelli and B. J. Baer
(Eds.) Researching translation and interpreting. New York: Routledge.

Action Research

Brenda Nicodemus Laurie Swabey

Gallaudet University St. Catherine University

1. What Is Action Research?

Action research is an approach for investigating questions and finding solutions to
problems that people confront in their everyday lives (Moen and Solvberg 2012; Stringer
2014). Although most frequently associated with educational research, action research is
practiced within a number of diverse disciplines (Mills 2014; Sagor 2011; Shanks, Miller
and Rosendale 2012). Action research serves as an umbrella term for several approaches
that have emerged from different research traditions, and researchers and educators have
differing perspectives about what it is, what it is for, and who can do it (Whitehead and
McNiff 2006). Reason and Bradbury offer the following definition:
Action research is a family of practices of living inquiry that aims, in a
great variety of ways, to link practice and ideas in the service of human
flourishing. It is not so much a methodology as an orientation to inquiry
that seeks to create participative communities of inquiry in which qualities
of engagement, curiosity and question posing are brought to bear on
significant practical issues (2008: 1).
In contrast to other research approaches, action research shifts the locus of control from
“objective” professional or academic researchers to individuals who traditionally have
been the subjects of research (Herr and Anderson 2005). Action research often takes the
form of a partnership between a practitioner and a researcher working together to solve a
problem.  Studies may also be conducted by practitioner-researchers, in which
practitioners are regarded not only as do-ers (people who are competent in a practice),
but also as thinkers (people who are competent in debating knowledge and generating
ideas) (Stringer 2014). Practitioner-researchers raise questions about problems or issues
in their environment with the goal of creating contextually relevant solutions. In this way

1
  

practitioner-researchers hold themselves accountable for their work within the

environment in which they are engaged. Further, practitioner-researchers strive to
generate theories in order to transform this knowledge into new learning that will benefit
others (McNiff and Whitehead 2011).
The types of questions that practitioner-researchers ask include:
• What is my concern about my practice?
• Why am I concerned?
• How do I gather evidence to show reasons for my concern?
• What can I do about the situation?
• How do I test the validity of my claims to knowledge?
• How can I check whether any conclusions I come to are reasonably fair and
accurate?
• How do I modify my practice in light of my evaluation?
• How do I explain the significance of my work to others?

At its core, the goal of action research is for people to increase the effectiveness of the
work in which they are personally engaged (Stringer 2014). This is achieved by
examining the particular dynamics present in a local setting, taking a specified action
within that setting, and evaluating the results of that action. This process of planning,
taking action, and evaluating leads to further planning, action, and evaluation (Burns
1999; Coghlan and Brannick 2010). Throughout this process, community and
organizational members collectively reflect upon the descriptions and explanations that
emerge. In a recursive manner, new actions are then planned and taken, which are once
again reviewed (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon 2014).
Action research is regarded as a qualitative approach to inquiry. A number of
textbooks describe how to conduct action research projects (e.g., Brydon-Miller,
Greenwood and Maguire 2003; Craig 2009; Mills 2014), and there has been an increase
in the number of master theses and dissertations that use an action research approach (Lee
and Wang 2012). Data in action research projects are generally taken from a variety of
sources (e.g., observations, scores, interviews, survey responses, grades, and
conversations) and commonly involve three phases: 1) pre-study planning, 2)
implementation of action, and 3) post-study analysis (Craig 2009).
When proposing an action research study, Institutional Review Boards may show
resistance to aspects of the approach that are non-traditional, such as participation by the

2
  

researcher, a cyclical approach to inquiry, and shared organizational and community

involvement (Herr and Anderson 2005). The practical and participatory nature of action
research is lauded for the concrete outcomes that can emerge in local settings, but some
argue that a weakness of the approach is its localism (Brydon-Miller et al. 2003). It is
typically perceived as impossible to take on large-scale social change efforts with the
action research approach, although others have argued against this bias (Martin 2008).
Action research has also been criticized as lacking in rigor (Chapman, Paterson and
Medves 2011), a claim that can be countered with careful research design and
implementation. Therefore, those who adopt an action research approach should be
prepared to address the concerns that surround it.

2. Origin of Action Research

It is generally accepted that action research emerged in the United States during the
1940s through the work of social psychologist Kurt Lewin. In his work, Lewin (1946)
promoted shared decision-making by stakeholders in the workplace and the establishment
of community action programs. While others, including John Collier and Jacob Moreno,
have also been credited with the rise of action research, it was Lewin’s work and
reputation that gave impetus to action research movements in many different disciplines.
In the 1950s, action research was taken up in educational circles, specifically by the
teaching profession, and was advanced by Stephen Corey in his book Action Research to
Improve School Practices (1953). Use of action research went into decline in the United
States in the late 1950s, perhaps because of a focus on new research models and technical
excellence in the “space age.” In contrast, the approach began to gain momentum in the
U.K. only in the 1970s, mainly through the influence of Lawrence Stenhouse, who was
working in the context of teacher education. Stenhouse argued that teachers in classrooms
should be supported by higher education personnel and wrote that the “fruitful
development in the field of curriculum and teaching depends upon evolving styles of co-
operative research by teachers and using full-time researchers to support the teachers’
work” (1975: 162).
Another researcher, Stephen Kemmis, became active in action research in
Australia and gained worldwide influence by developing ideas with a critical and

3
  

participatory focus. Through Kemmis’ contributions, action research became recognized

as a form of practical research that legitimized teachers’ attempts to understand their
work from their own point of view. Instead of learning about the disciplines and applying
those theories to their work in a sterile, objective manner only, teachers were encouraged
to explore what they were doing and propose ways of improving it by using a hands-on
approach.
Although action research initially flourished in the field of education, this
approach to inquiry is now widely accepted across disciplines and recognized for its
potential to contribute to knowledge and theory generation. The adoption of action
research by various disciplines produced a number of variants of its basic tenets. The
variants include cooperative inquiry (Heron 1988; Reason and Rowan 1981),
participatory action research (Goodnough 2008; McIntyre 2008; Sappington, Baker,
Gardner and Pacha 2010), and action science (Argyris and Schön 1978). Variations of
action research approaches also exist within educational settings (Atweh, Kemmis, and
Weeks 1998; Elliott 1991; Greenwood and Levin 2007; Hollingsworth 1997; Noffke and
Somekh 2005), including approaches known as teacher research (Burnaford, Fischer,
and Hobson 2001; Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993; Kincheloe 2012), reflective practice
(Evans 2002), and community service learning (Angelelli 1998;  Kaye 2004; Wade and
Anderson 1996; Zeichner and Melnick 1996). The use of action research in educational
settings has contributed significantly to the development of more “democratic” teaching
practices that are linked to students’ and teachers’ everyday lives.
Feminist theory has also spawned alternate forms of action research through its
refusal to accept theories, research, and perspectives that devalue or erase women’s lives,
experiences, and contributions to research (Collins 2000; hooks 2000; Morawski 1994;
Reinharz 1992; Stewart and Franz 1994; Wilkinson and Kitzinger 1996). One of the
strengths of action research is that the fundamental principles that undergird the approach
are universal while emerging variants are able to emphasize particular aspects of the
process.

3. Uses of Action Research in Translation and Interpreting Studies

4
  

Given the roots of action research in education, it is not surprising to find a parallel in
Translation and Interpreting Studies. The use of this approach in T&I is relatively new
and primarily appears in the literature on interpreter education and translator education.
However, the literature contains more musings about the potential for this type of
research than published studies that actually use this approach. Liu (2011), in a
methodological review of 48 articles published in the journal Interpreting during the
period of 2004-2009, identified only one article that used action research as an approach,
and it was a study related to educating interpreters. She pointed out the need for action
research to identify new problems and additional questions. Pöchhacker (2011) also
commented on the promising possibilities of action research, both for interpreting
practice and for the development of techniques to use in teaching interpreting. Other
references alluding to the importance and potential of action research are found earlier in
the signed language interpreting literature (Napier 2005b; Turner 2005).
Action research has also been discussed in the translation literature, particularly in
regard to translator education, where it is becoming more widely used to identify
problems and answer a variety of practical questions. Fraser (2004) is often quoted,
suggesting the need for a better model for translation research. Perhaps, Fraser states, “we
need to start from practice and work back from it to theory” (2004: 59) and, in doing so,
more aptly mirror the actual work of practitioners. In his recent book Teaching and
Researching Translation, Basil Hatim carries this idea further, proposing “action research
as an ideal methodology with which to study translation, and thus question the
assumption that theory and practice are separate and distinct” (2013: 3).
Cravo and Neves (2007) identified benefits to using action research in translation
studies that are similar to those identified in interpreter education and interpreting studies,
including narrowing the gap between theory and practice, identifying new issues or
practices, and making connections between scholars and practitioners. They described the
benefits of researchers and translators working together, while also identifying some of
the challenges and problems of this particular approach.
Angelelli (2008) suggested that action research projects conducted collaboratively
between researchers and interpreting associations could advance the profession. One
example of a project suggested by Angelelli is the exploration of how interpreters enact

5
  

their roles based on professional codes of conduct in a variety of settings. Professional

codes of conduct promulgated by interpreting organizations are based on a theoretical
model that constructs the interpreter (or translator) as a neutral conduit of the source text;
thus quality of the interpretation or translation is based on its “closeness” to the source
text. However, studies of actual interpreter behavior suggest that such a model is neither
possible nor desirable. As a result, practitioners may feel conflicted when attempting to
follow the standards promoted by their professional organizations. An action research
approach could provide opportunities for researchers and practitioners to work together
on studies that examine actual and prescribed roles of interpreters.
The debate about how interpreters and translators should be educated is ongoing,
yet within this debate there is a growing belief that action research holds promise for both
teaching and practice (Cravo and Neves 2007; Hatim 2013; Kiraly 2000; Pöchhacker
2010). In addition to contributing to effective methods of instruction, action research has
other potential applications in interpreter/translator education, including the investigation
of processes and practices for selecting students for admission to programs, as well as the
assessment of student learning. As with collaboration between researchers and
practitioners, collaboration between teachers and students promises great benefits for all
parties involved. Both Gile (2004) and Pöchhacker (2010), however, caution that such
partnerships require mutual trust, the capacity for self reflection, and an understanding of
teaching and learning that transcends the traditional “sage on the stage” approach, which
is more teacher-centered than student- or learner-centered. Kiraly, a proponent of the
social-constructivist approach to translator education, advocates strongly for action
research in the classroom, stating, “Adopting the role of teacher as researcher is, I
believe, the key to innovation in our field” (2000: 122).

4. Examples of Studies That Have Used Action Research

This section highlights three studies that use action research to examine and improve
interpreter education. Although the three studies tackle different problems, they share a
number of features. Each describes a real world problem in a classroom, program, or
community, and the pursuit of a solution relevant to the stakeholders. The research was
not conducted “on” a randomly selected group of participants. Rather, the researchers

6
  

were directly involved in the programs or classrooms described. For example, one
researcher (Napier) not only conducted the study but also established the program, taught
courses in the program, and served as the program coordinator. Each study exemplifies
the cyclical nature of action research, with every stage in the process–planning, taking
action, and evaluation–influencing the next cycle.
Two of these studies (Slatyer 2006; Napier 2005a) were undertaken purposefully
as action research projects. In the third study, Hansen and Shlesinger (2007) report that
they did not begin their project with an action research approach. Instead, they described
seeing the “action research spiral” emerge almost inadvertently as they planned,
developed, implemented, and evaluated interventions for their program, and then, based
on insights and evidence, started the cycle again. These three studies also exemplify other
common characteristics of action research: the studies were all practical and
participatory; they were all conducted in the local environment; data collection was from
a variety of sources (e.g., scores, focus groups, teacher evaluations, grades); the process
was iterative; evaluation, and making changes based on evaluation, was key; and each
study involved collaboration with stakeholders, including students, teachers and, in the
case of the first study, community partners.
Two of the studies described here are about interpreting curriculum development
and change that came out of Australia. The first is an example of action research with the
aim of collaboratively developing a curriculum for teaching ad hoc interpreters of
languages of lesser diffusion (Slatyer 2006). The problem investigated was the use of
untrained interpreters, often other community members, for new and emerging migrant
and refugee language groups. Although Australia has a well-developed system for
providing interpreting service for most languages, serving emerging language
communities, as well as individuals who use languages of limited diffusion, is an on-
going challenge. In this project, collaboration was key and was achieved by inviting the
major stakeholders–the service providers that hire interpreters, the professional
interpreting organization, migrant and refugee groups, and educators–to provide input on
the curriculum planning and pilot course delivery. A three-phase interpreting curriculum
was developed and piloted, which included a week of intensive instruction on campus, a
six-week period of mentored and supervised fieldwork, and then another week of

7
  

intensive instruction on campus. Slatyer described the benefits of using an action research
approach, citing, in particular, the on-going collection and analysis of data from a variety
of sources, including the end-users of the curriculum. The cycles of planning, information
gathering, implementation, and evaluation provided evidence for modifications of the
pilot curriculum. The project resulted in a model curriculum that allowed novice
interpreters to achieve the minimum level of competence needed for professional
practice.
In another study from Australia, Napier (2005a) used an action research approach
to make effective changes in a curriculum and delivery mode for a post-graduate diploma
program for signed language interpreters. The specific problems that motivated the study
were both external and systemic, with a need to reach potential students from all parts of
Australia who were unable to attend the program in a more traditional format. The
proposed solution involved making changes to the curriculum and format (e.g.,
teaching/learning strategies, materials, locations, modes) so that the program could be
effectively offered in a distance mode. After establishing this objective, an action plan
was established with four phases: 1) sensing (identifying the need for change), 2) reading
(literature review, focus groups with faculty/staff stakeholders, student questionnaires), 3)
matching (recommendations for change), and 4) acting (implementation of change).
Evaluation was cited by Napier as an important reason for choosing an action research
approach, and a variety of formative and summative assessments were used to evaluate
the revised educational delivery format (e.g., teacher evaluations of workload for each
unit, the amount of student participation online, and evaluation of student grades for each
unit). Students also evaluated the revised delivery format after each teaching block, with
changes implemented in the next block. At the end of the semester, all teacher and
student evaluations were analyzed to make further changes in future course offerings. As
the program grows, the faculty will monitor the need for additional changes.
A final example of action research in interpreter education (at the Copenhagen
School of Business) comes from Hansen and Shlesinger (2007). The specific problems
that motivated this study included a high rate of failure on final exams and ineffective
student self-study materials. The proposed solution involved revamping the language lab
to increase its versatility and functionality, as well as improving the availability of

8
  

innovative self-study materials. The researchers implemented an experimental selection

and range of teaching and learning materials for the language lab, including unique uses
of technology for practice and assessment. Data was collected and analyzed from a
variety of sources including student self-study logs and course evaluations. The positive
evaluations by students were supported by interpreting performance exam scores that
were considerably higher than those from previous years. After possible confounding
variables were ruled out, results indicated that the new learning materials and the
versatility of the lab contributed significantly to improving the students’ competence.
This particular study illustrates the depth and scope of an action research project and
highlights the real world challenges in developing innovative materials to improve
student performance without increasing students’ anxiety.

5. Conclusion and Applications of Action Research

Action research is a participatory approach to inquiry that couples action and reflection in
the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern within a community. In this
chapter we provided an overview and history of the action research approach and three
examples from T&I research. Gile (2004) alludes to action research as a trend in T&I
studies and identifies both the positive aspects of this research, including access to
interpreters and direct observation of their work, and the challenges, including the
possibility of bias.
In all disciplines, it is important to select a suitable approach for investigating
identified questions. While action research is one of many approaches that could be
considered, practitioners should be aware that action research does have a set of
fundamental principles and practices that must be adhered to in order to make
publishable, defensible claims. Although the term “action research” seems practical,
accessible, and inviting, students and interpreter/translator practitioners should not
undertake this approach lightly but should fully consider the rigor that it requires.
The gap between theory and practice in both Translation and Interpreting Studies
is frequently lamented in the literature. Action research offers one approach for reducing
this gap by developing partnerships among practitioners, researchers, and community
members to investigate, evaluate, and implement concrete solutions to the problems they

9
  

face. In action research, problems are investigated in a more embedded, contextualized

manner, with stakeholders assuming more engaged roles than in traditional “objective”
approaches to research. The most significant influence of the action research approach
may be on the content and delivery of interpreter and translator education.

6. Further Reading

McNiff and Whitehead (2011) and Stringer (2014) provide clear guidelines that enable
novice practitioner researchers to move through the process of action research inquiry.
Craig (2009) offers a practical blueprint of action research based on her experiences with
students. For doctoral students using an action research approach, Herr and Anderson
(2005) offer a useful start-to-finish description of the research process. Reason and
Bradbury’s (2008) extensive (over 700 pages) edited volume contributes numerous
perspectives on the grounding, practices, and skills needed, as well as “exemplars” of
action research projects. Within the context of social science research, Noffke and
Somekh (2005) describe action research as a welcome approach that can impact local
communities.  

7. Sample Studies

In addition to the studies reviewed under section 4, Cravo and Neves (2007: 92–107)
acknowledge the complexity of using action research in Translation Studies and address
many of the issues encountered in using this new approach in studies of translation,
translator education and translator teacher education. Fraser (2004: 57–61) looks broadly
at translation and interpreting research and makes a strong case for the incorporation of
action research, particularly in order for theory to reflect more accurately the experience
of practitioners.
 
 
 
References

10
  

Angelelli, Claudia. 1998. A Service-Learning Component in a Translation Course: A

Report from Stanford University. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of
the American Translators Association, ed. Muriel M. Jerome-O’ Keeffe, 375–380.
Angelelli, Claudia. 2008. The Role of the Interpreter in the Healthcare Setting: A Plea
for a Dialogue between Research and Practice. In Crossing Borders in Community
Interpreting, eds. Carmen Valero-Garcés, and Anne Martin, 147–165.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Argyris, Chris, and Donald A. Schön. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of
Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Atweh, Bill, Stephen Kemmis, and Patricia Weeks, eds. 1998. Action Research in
Practice: Partnerships for Social Justice in Education. New York: Routledge.
Brydon-Miller, Mary, Davydd Greenwood, and Patricia Maguire. 2003. Why Action
Research? Action Research 1:9–28.
Burnaford, Gail E., Joseph Fischer, and David Hobson. 2001. Teachers Doing Research:
The Power of Action Through Inquiry. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Burns, Anne. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Chapman, Christine, Margo Paterson, and Jennifer M. Medves. 2011. The QUIPPED
Project: Exploring Relevance and Rigor of Action Research Using Established
Principles and Criteria. The Qualitative Report 16:208–28.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Landy Lytle. 1993. Inside Outside: Teacher
Research and Knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Coghlan, David, and Teresa Brannick. 2010. Doing Action Research in Your Own
Organization. London: Sage.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Corey, Stephen, M. 1953. Action Research to Improve School Practices. Bureau of
Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univ.
Craig, Dorothy Varcarcel. 2009. Action Research Essentials. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cravo, Ana, and Joselia Neves. 2007. Action Research in Translation Studies. The
Journal of Specialised Translation 7:92–106.

11
  

Elliott, John. 1991. Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open Univ.
Press.
Evans, Linda. 2002. Reflective Practice in Educational Research: Developing Advanced
Skills. London: Continuum.
Fraser, Janet. 2004. Translation Research and Interpreting Research: Pure, Applied,
Action or Pedagogic? In Translation Research and Interpreting Research:
Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, ed. Cristina Schäffner, 57–61. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Gile, Daniel. 2004. Translation Research Versus Interpreting Research: Kinship,
Differences and Prospects for Partnership. In Translation Research and
Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, ed. Cristina Schäffner,
10-35. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Goodnough, Karen. 2008. Dealing with Messiness and Uncertainty in Practitioner
Research: The Nature of Participatory Action Research. Canadian Journal of
Education 31:431–58.
Greenwood, Davydd J., and Morten Levin. 2007. Introduction to Action Research: Social
Research for Social Change. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hansen, Inge, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2007. The Silver Lining: Technology and Self-
Study in the Interpreting Classroom. Interpreting 9:1, 95–118.
Heron, John. 1988. Impressions of the Other Reality: A Co-operative Inquiry into Altered
States of Consciousness. In Human Inquiry in Action: Developments in New
Paradigm Research, ed. Peter Reason, 182–198. London: Sage.
Hatim, Basil. 2013. Teaching and Researching Translation. Essex, United Kingdom:
Pearson Educated Limited.
Herr, Kathryn, and Gary L. Anderson. 2005. The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide
for Students and Faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hollingsworth, Sandra, ed. 1997. International Action Research: A Casebook for
Educational Reform. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
hooks, bell. 2000. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. London: Pluto Press.

12
  

Kaye, Cathryn Berger. 2004. The Complete Guide to Service Learning: Proven, Practical
Ways to Engage Students in Civic Responsibility, Academic Curriculum, and
Social Action. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
Kemmis, Stephen, McTaggart, Robin, and Nixon, Rhonda. (2014). The Action Research
Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Singapore: Springer.
Kincheloe, Joe L. 2012. Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Paths to Empowerment.
New York: Routledge.
Kiraly, Don. 2000. A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education:
Empowerment from Theory to Practice. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.
Lee, Young Ah, and Ye Wang. 2012. Searching for New Directions: Developing MA
Action Research Project as a Tool for Teaching. US-China Education Review
8:697–709.
Lewin, Kurt. 1946. Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues
2:34–46.
Liu, Minhua. 2011. Methodology in Interpreting Studies: A Methodological Review of
Evidence-based Research. In Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in
Action, eds. Brenda Nicodemus and Laurie Swabey, 85–120. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Martin, Ann W. 2008. Action Research on a Large Scale: Issues and Practices. In The
SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, 2nd ed.
ed. Peter and Hilary Bradbury, 394–406. London: Sage.
McIntyre, Alice. 2008. Participatory Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McNiff, Jean, and Jack Whitehead. 2011. All You Need to Know about Action Research.
2nd ed. London: Sage.
Mills, Geoffrey E. 2014. Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. 5th ed.
Boston: Pearson.
Moen, Torill, and Astrid M. Solvberg. 2012. The Power of Words: A Crucial
Conversation at the Launch of an Action Research Project. U.S.-China Review
6:557–567.
Morawski, Jill G. 1994. Practicing Feminisms, Reconstructing Psychology: Notes on a
Liminal Science. Ann Arbor: The Univ. of Michigan Press.

13
  

Napier, Jemina. 2005a. Making Learning Accessible for Sign Language Interpreters: A
Process of Change. Educational Action Research 13:4, 505–24.
Napier, Jemina. 2005b. Linguistic Features and Strategies of Interpreting: From Research
to Education to Practice. In Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter
Education: Directions for Research and Practice. ed. Marc Marschark, Rico
Peterson, and Elizabeth Winston, 84–111. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Noffke, Susan E., and Bridget Somekh. 2005. Action Research, In Research Methods in
the Social Sciences, ed. Bridget Somekh and Cathy Lewin, 89–96. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2010. The Role of Research in Interpreter Education. Translation &
Interpreting 2:1–10.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2011. Researching Interpreting: Approaches to Inquiry. In Advances
in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action, eds. Brenda Nicodemus and Laurie
Swabey, 5–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reason, Peter, and Hilary Bradbury, eds. 2008. The SAGE Handbook of Action Research:
Participative Inquiry and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Reason, Peter, and John Rowan. 1981. Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm
Research. Chichester: Wiley.
Reinharz, Shulamit. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press.
Sagor, Richard. 2011. The Action Research Guidebook: A Four-stage Process for
Educators and School Teams. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sappington, Neil, Paul J. Baker, Dianne Gardner, and Joe Pacha. 2010. A Signature
Pedagogy for Leadership Education: Preparing Principals Through Participatory
Action Research. Planning and Changing 41:249–73.
Shanks, Joyce, Lauren Miller, and Susannah Rosendale. 2012. Action Research in a
Professional Development School Setting to Support Teacher Candidate Self-
efficacy. SRATE Journal 21:26–32.
Slatyer, Helen. 2006. Researching Curriculum Innovation in Interpreter Education. In
New Approaches to Interpreter Education, ed. Cynthia Roy, 47–65. Washington
DC: Gallaudet Univ. Press.

14
  

Stenhouse, Lawrence. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development.

London: Heinemann.
Stewart, Abigail J., and Carol E. Franz, (ed.) 1994. Women Creating Lives: Identities,
Resilience, and Resistance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Stringer, Ernest T. 2014. Action Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Turner, Graham. 2005. Toward Real Interpreting. In Sign Language Interpreting and
Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice. eds. Marc
Marschark, Rico Peterson, and Elizabeth Winston, 29–56. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press.
Whitehead, Jack, and Jean McNiff. 2006. Action Research: Living Theory. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wade, Rahima C., and Jeffrey B. Anderson 1996. Community Service-learning: A
Strategy for Preparing Human Service-oriented Teachers. Teacher Education
Quarterly Fall:59–74.
Wilkinson, Sue, and Celia Kitzinger, eds. 1996. Representing the Other: A Feminism and
Psychology Reader. London: Sage.  
Zeichner, Kenneth, and Susan Melnick. 1996. The Role of Community Field Experiences
in Preparing Teachers for Cultural Diversity. In Currents of Reform in Pre-service
Teacher Education, eds. Kenneth Zeichner, Susan Melnick, and Mary Louise
Gomez, 176–98. New York: Teachers College Press.

15

View publication stats