Exploring the complexities of validity claims in action research

The paper considers the disparate language games of both practitioners and academics as the attempt to construct claims to 'validity' in action research. Drawing upon a depth of research experience, the paper identifies four phases in the research process in which researchers and practitioners must negotiate their roles and what counts as valid output from the research process. It argues that the epistemic assumptions underlying claims by researchers, practitioners and, latterly, those who read published outputs, generate ongoing complexities in the interpretation of the validity of research.