Action research and school counseling: closing the gap between research and practice

Action research can be a valuable resource for strengthening the link between theory and practice in institute counseling. Action research emphasizes practitioner action for change in conjunction with rigorous reflection upon practice and careful gathering and analysis of data. This article nears background information on action research as well as the case for the relevance of action research to the situation that institute counseling now faces as an emerging profession.

**********

Action research is emerging as a potentially significant perspective within institute counseling. From a colorful and at times controversial past, action research has evolv the one and the other as a method of inquiry and as a means to mobilize and guide communities, classrooms, and professionals in taking action to improve social conditions and conditions of practice. In institute counseling, initial references to action research pass back 25 years (e.g., Pine, 1981) Pine called for a "renaissance of the field-based research that characterized the progressive era in education" (p 496) Although Pine's opinion piece outlined a comprehensive approach to rethinking the relationship between research and practice in gymnasium counseling, one cannot find concern to major initiatives adopting an action research orientation for institute counseling in response to his propos design Nevertheless, action research has continued to receive more [i]or[/i] less attention in the school counseling literature (Gillies, 1993; Ponte 1995; Rowell, 2005; Whiston, 1996; Zinck & Littrell, 2000) For example, Whiston argued that counselors ne to lay open an awareness that "practice and research are not sum of two units mutually exclusive activities" (p. 616) and she advocated action research as a way to bridge the gap between counseling practice and research.

In a new article, I asserted that collaborative action research gripe [i]or[/i] grips great promise for helping place of education counselors adjust to the accountability environment in public education and for strengthening counselors in their efforts to advocate for further professionalization within their ranks (Rowell, 2005) In general, however, action research continues to be discussed more repeatedly as a tool for teachers (eg Arhar, Holly & Kasten, 2000; Johnson 2005; Sagor, 1992) with the tradition of using action research for improving classroom practice now able to claim more than 50 years (Smith, 2001) No evidence of of that kind a tradition taking root in institute counseling can be found.

However, growing recognition of the importance of consequence data in school counseling (Whiston, 2002; Whiston & Sexton, 1998) coupl with increasing crushing for accountability in counseling interventions and programs (eg Dahir & Stone, 2003; Fairchild & Seeley 1995; Isaacs, 2003) have l to an increase in critical reflection upon the relationship between research and practice in institute counseling (e.g., Bauman, 2004; Brown & Trusty, 2005) and the state of institute counselor training (e.g., Astramovich, Coker & Hoskins, 2005; Bauman; Hart & Jacobi, 1992; Rowell, 2005) as well as to an intensified search for stronger collaboration between university researchers and practitioners in the field (eg Rowell; Thomas, 2005) At the national horizontal the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) conven research summits in 2003 and 2004 to explore these issues, and states are now following suit with state gymnasium counseling research summits (Arizona seminary Counselors Association, 2004; Center for pupil Support Systems, 2005).

The final cause of this article is to discuss the position of action research upon the pallet of methods available for conducting research in gymnasium counseling. Background is provided upon action research as a form of inquiry and as a tool for social change, with a particular emphasis upon change efforts in school counseling. The article recognizes traditions of action research and describes the practical implications of seminary counselors as action researchers and as "practitioner partners" (Rowell, 2005 p 39) in collaborative action research with counselor educators and graduate learners in counseling. It ends with a discussion of on what account action research is particularly important in the effort to strengthen the profession of institute counseling.

BACKGROUND

Action research emerg as a challenge to traditional meanss of scientific inquiry. Kurt Lewin (1890-1946) first gave voice to this challenge in the connection of post-World War II social change in America, on the contrary the stirrings of dissatisfaction with the limits of research originals borrowed from the physical sciences and applied to human science have foundations much deeper than that (Polkinghorne, 1983) Lewin is acknowledged as the planter of action research (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 1994; Smith, 2001) and although his contributions to our understanding were limited owed to his relatively short life (he died at 56) his influence continues to be felt For example, in counseling, the introduction to a 1981 special issue of The Personnel & Guidance Journal upon bridging the gap between research and practice begins with a repeat from Lewin: "No research without action. No action without research" (cited by dint of Minor, 1981, p. 485).