Rationale, Assumptions, and
Development
For many years I (primary author) worked for one of the Institute of
Education Sciences Regional Educational Laboratories (REL-Central).
These labs, which are distributed throughout the United States, are
tasked with providing technical assistance and consultation to local
education agencies (i.e., schools or districts). Within my position at
REL-Central, I often found myself consulting with various agencies to
help solve some of their most persistent problems. On their face, the
challenges seemed quite similar across sites: attenuating high drop-out
rates, improving reading scores, integrating English language learners
into general education classrooms. It was tempting to simply identify a
solution from the literature, implement it, and hope for the best;
however, for anyone thinking critically about the problem, this would
not suffice. Despite their commonalities, each problem was unique and
situationally grounded. Although the literature provided a good starting
place, each problem required a contextually responsive intervention.
Developing and implementing a contextually responsive intervention
requires a thorough understanding of the problem at hand. It became
clear that often no one, including me, possessed a sufficient level of
understanding to accomplish this task. We could name the problem and
list some of its symptoms; but if pressed, we could scarcely describe
the nature of the problem with any degree of clarity, nor its root
causes. We had, what I have come to refer to, as a low-resolution
problem. I had a few techniques for simply deconstructing a problem such
as conceptual mapping, driver diagrams, and failure modes and effects
analyses; but none for truly analyzing it with sufficient detail to
inform our research. Specifically, none of the techniques I had at my
disposal provided a sufficient process for understanding the problem,
prioritizing research efforts, and transparently communicating our
articulation of the problem to others. To fill this need, I began
developing a method that would produce a high-resolution problem: one
with a clear ambit, composition, and degree of tenacity.
Two assumptions guided development of this method. The first
acknowledges that a problem can be articulated in a variety of ways
depending on its situated context and the evolving schema as the
researcher engages with the problem \cite{deGrave,Polkinghoime}. This assumption originates from a
phenomenological theory of knowledge acquisition proposed by Martin
Heidegger known as hermeneutics. This epistemological orientation
prioritizes direct engagement with a problem over the mediated process
of abstract theorizing. As described by \citet{Packer},
In hermeneutic inquiry and the ontology that grounds it, the primary
origin of knowledge is taken to be practical activity: direct, everyday
practical involvement with tools, artifacts, and people. Such activity
exists prior to any theorizing and has a character distinct from the
latter. Most notably, it involves no context-free elements definable in
the absence of interpretation (p.1083).
From this perspective, context, prior experiences, and preconceptions
serve as the foundation for investigating any new phenomenon. This also
includes biases of which a researcher may not even be aware, yet
nevertheless mediate the way the problem is interpreted \citep{Safranski}.
The second assumption asserts that any articulation of a problem is a
heuristic: an aid for better understanding and communicating the nature
of the problem itself. From this perspective, understanding is grounded
within a given context and interpreted through the researcher’s schema \citep{Geanellos}. This suggests that there is no single true way to
look at a problem, but what should be expected is a clear articulation
of the problem from the researcher’s perspective. Although this may
initially seem at odds with the positivist orientation of
interventionist research, the practical nature of action research allows
for our epistemic orientation to be situational, just as our research
is. Because of this, the idea that a heuristic could serve as the basis
for follow-on positivist research is not inherently at odds. Even John
\citet{Dewey} an ardent proponent of scientific methodology, referred to
experimentation as a “trial of ideas” (p. 153) . Despite
this capitulation, the subjectivity inherent in a heuristic does
underscore the need for transparency in how a problem is articulated. In
other words, if we assume our understanding of a problem is merely a
heuristic, then we are obliged to be especially clear about our
interpretations of it.
Guided by these assumptions and motivated by the need for a systematic
and transparent process for analyzing problems for practical action
research, I began development of a method that combines the individual
strengths of extant deconstruction processes within a framework that
captures the situational nature of the scenario. I have moved on from
REL-Central and now direct a graduate teacher preparation program, where
I teach this method as part of a course in action research. A student
enrolled in this program (second author) has been invaluable in helping
to refine and operationalize this method for use by practitioners as
well as trained researchers.