Action research and reflective practice: towards a holistic view

Two concepts that have captured the imagination of the educational community in the last 60 years have been those of ‘reflective practice’ and ‘action research’. Both, in their various forms, are considered to be critical dimensions of the professional development of teachers. However, whilst both were receiving academic attention during the 1930s and 1940s (Lewin, 1934, cited in Adelman, 1993; Lewin, 1946; Dewey, 1933), it was not until Stenhouse’s (1975) notion of the teacher-as-researcher that the two came most compellingly into relationship and educational action research as a process, which held at its centre different kinds of reflection, began to be reformulated in Britain (Carr, 1993). This article considers the important part played in teachers’ development by different kinds of action research. Its central thesis is that, although action research has a critical role to play not least as a means of building the capacity of teachers as researchers of their own practice, there has been insufficient attention given to both the nature of reflection in the action research process, and its relationship to the purposes, processes and outcomes. The article challenges the rational, cognitive models of reflection that are implicit in much of the action research literature. It suggests that more attention needs to be given to the importance of the role of emotion in understanding and developing the capacities for reflection which facilitates personal, professional and ultimately system change.

Regenerative Medicine and New Labour Life Science Policy: Rhetorics of Success, Narratives of Sustainability and Survival

Advances in stem cell science and tissue engineering are being turned into applications and products through a novel medical paradigm known as regenerative medicine. This paper begins by examining the vulnerabilities and risks encountered by the regenerative medicine industry during a pivotal moment in its scientific infancy: the 2000s. Under the auspices of New Labour, British medical scientists and life science innovation firms associated with regenerative medicine, received demonstrative rhetorical pledges of support, aligned with the publication of a number of government initiated reports presaged by Bioscience 2015: Improving National Health, Increasing National Wealth. The Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry (and its successors) held industry consultations to determine the best means by which innovative bioscience cultures might be promoted and sustained in Britain. Bioscience 2015 encapsulates the first chapter of this sustainability narrative. By 2009, the tone of this storyline had changed to one of survivability. In the second part of the paper, we explore the ministerial interpretation of the ‘bioscience discussion cycle’ that embodies this narrative of expectation, using a computer-aided content analysis programme. Our analysis notes that the ministerial interpretation of these reports has continued to place key emphasis upon the distinctive and exceptional characteristics of the life science industries, such as their ability to perpetuate innovations in regenerative medicine and the optimism this portends – even though many of the economic expectations associated with this industry have remained unfulfilled.