Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/reac20

The daisy model for collaborative action research:

application to educational practice

Mary Melrose & Maureen Reid

To cite this article: Mary Melrose & Maureen Reid (2000) The daisy model for collaborative
action research: application to educational practice, Educational Action Research, 8:1, 151-165,
DOI: 10.1080/09650790000200109

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790000200109

Published online: 20 Dec 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3218

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
Educational Action Research, Volume 8, Number 1, 2000

The Daisy Model for Collaborative

Action Research: application to
educational practice

MARY MELROSE & MAUREEN REID

Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

ABSTRACT The Daisy Model is a conceptualisation of the way in which a core

group of experienced and novice action researchers may work on a range of
related mini-projects that contribute to organisational improvement. This model
enables the spread of action research from one or two enthusiasts to others in
an organisation. It allows for changes in individual commitment and
organisational context as the research progresses. Development of this model
has occurred since 1995, during several projects related to educational practice
in New Zealand polytechnics. In 1997 the model was applied to the
collaborative improvement of policies and procedures for recognition of prior
learning at two polytechnics. This article describes the model and its
application and examines the roles of the facilitator(s) and the types of activities
that occur within the central core group and petal mini-project groups of the
Daisy.

The Daisy Model

The Daisy Model is a conceptualisation that formalises a pattern of action
common amongst action researchers. A pictorial format (Figure 1) is
provided that researchers consider and alter as the research progresses. The
initial diagram depicts a central core group of researchers, each of whom
sets up and leads a petal or mini-project group, and uses the core group for
feedback and critique of progress. Petal groups focus on closely related
areas of educational practice. Petals can grow or wither at different times
without the cessation of the entire project. An experienced action researcher
acts as facilitator for the core group. Other core group members contribute
specialised knowledge of the area of practice to be improved. Members of the
organisation learn the process of action research, with support from the
whole core group, as they plan, practise and reflect with their own petal

151
Mary Melrose & Maureen Reid

group. The Daisy Model enables the spread of action research from one or
more enthusiasts to others within an organisation and overcomes some of
the problems of patchy commitment and resource availability as action
research is implemented.

85mm

Figure 1. Representation of ideal Daisy Model.

The Daisy is a particularly apt biological metaphor for the core and petal
groups of an action research project, since the Daisy is a composite flower
and action research is a group process. A Daisy flower is made up of a
central cluster of individual male and female flowers within a circle of
asexual flowers that display enlarged petals to attract bees. An action
research group is made up of individual practitioners, all interested in
improving a common aspect of their practice, who gain support from the
power of the group to cyclically observe, reflect, plan and act. The outside of
a real Daisy is where the action of attraction occurs. The petals of the Daisy
Model represent mini-project groups who put plans into action between core
group meetings. The central core of a Daisy is where cross-pollination and
fertilisation occurs. The core of the Daisy Model represents individuals who
collectively drive the research project, exchange observations and reflections
and ideas about their respective mini-projects and collaboratively build
theory around an area of practice. Tiny Daisy flowers on their own would be
unlikely to attract bees to ensure the creation of the next generation of
daisies. A grouped mass of flowers or individuals with a common purpose
support one another in their endeavours and enhance the likelihood of a
successful outcome. The effect of grouping and specialisation of flowers for

152
 THE DAISY MODEL FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

different functions makes the variation and success of future daisies

possible. The range and variety of experiences, knowledge and skills brought
together by members of an action research group contribute to the success
of a research project. For adequate fertilisation and cross-pollination of
daisies, there must be co-ordination of the maturation of the sex organs in
the core. For the successful application of the Daisy Model there must be
facilitation of the continuation of coordinated efforts of the members of the
core group.
The Daisy Model evolved under the influence of the work of Kemmis &
McTaggart (1988) who outlined an action research process in their Action
Planner. Action research comprises a series of cycles of collegial research
activity, with each cycle including planning, action, observation, reflection
on and in action, and the generation of grounded theory about an area of
common practice. In the Daisy Model one action research cycle happens at
and between each core group research meeting. An action research cycle
may occur in the petal group between core group meetings. However, any
petal group may be used merely to enact a plan or collect more data
between core group meetings. At any point in time the Daisy diagram may
vary.

An Application of the Daisy Model

In each new context for action research a unique pattern of operation is
expected to develop from the ideal Daisy Model. The model was refined in a
collaborative action research project between staff of Bay of Plenty
Polytechnic (BOPP) and Auckland Institute of Technology (AIT).[1] Actual
interactions over 6 months of 1997 at BOPP are represented and
summarised by Figure 2. The example that is discussed here focuses on the
improvement of policies, procedures and practices concerning the
recognition and assessment of prior learning in New Zealand polytechnics.
Assessment of Prior Learning (APL) can be conceptualised as a subset
of what has been popularised in New Zealand as Recognition of Prior
Learning (RPL). RPL is a process through which an individual seeks formal
recognition for achievements of past learning and experience, whether these
experiences are the result of formal education or training, on the job
training, work experience or life experience (Ker, 1993). RPL for academic
credit is conceptualised holistically as including informal learning from life
and work experience. RPL involves two key dimensions: the assessment of
the prior learning and the certification of that learning. In New Zealand, the
driving force behind the implementation of recognition of prior learning
processes was the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA). NZQA was
charged with the task of creating an accessible and equitable qualifications
framework, where ‘there is a flexible system for the gaining of qualifications
with the recognition of competence already achieved’ [Education
Amendment Act, 1990, s 253(1) (c) (ii)].

153
Mary Melrose & Maureen Reid

100mm

Figure 2. Representation of interactions during an action research project to improve

recognition of prior learning at Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, 1997.

Staff from AIT were already engaged in a long-term research project on

assessment of prior learning across tertiary organisations in New Zealand,
funded by NZQA. Researchers at AIT (Reid et al, 1997) had developed
principles of good assessment of prior learning practice. Liaison between the
staff who were responsible for assessment of prior learning at each
polytechnic, and agreement from their academic directors, resulted in the
first action research meeting and subsequent progress.
From ethnography (Fetterman, 1982) came two tenets which guided
the application of the model: phenomenology (the viewpoints of staff guided
the process) and contextualism (the political and organisational setting and
history surrounding the study were recognised).
Carr & Kemmis’s (1983) delineation of three types of action research,
technical, practical and critical, influenced the application of the Daisy
Model as the researchers wished to adopt a critical approach whenever
possible. Winter (1998, p. 58) states, ‘the ideal of a genuinely learning
organisation (as the context for professional practice) is at the heart of
action research’. The core group was interested not only in completing a

154
 THE DAISY MODEL FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

task (for example, the production of RPL policies and procedures), but also
in improving their own practice of RPL with a particular set of staff or
students or industry representatives. The core group also analysed and
critiqued the systems and social construction of the organisations to which
they belonged, with a view to improving those within the changing context of
the tertiary educational climate for RPL in New Zealand. RPL itself
represents attempts to improve access to tertiary education, and to assess
and certificate the existing knowledge for those who may have been
disempowered or disadvantaged in their previous attempts to achieve
tertiary qualifications in the past. According to McTaggart (1998a), critical
action research expresses a commitment to bring together collective self-
study of practice, broad social analysis (in the critical social science
tradition, which reveals disempowerment and injustice) and action for
improvement. Critical action research projects typically include mixed
groups of researchers networking with others, as change and innovation
require broadly based support (McTaggart, 1998a). In this application of the
Daisy Model, the core group of staff from two organisations had a mixture of
leadership, management, administrative, support and teaching roles, and
they networked in petal groups with students, prospective students,
teaching teams and industry representatives.
Another influence on the development and application of this model
was the CRASP model of Zuber-Skerritt (1992) and her work in promoting
the use of critical action research to effect organisational change. She stated
that action research is:
Critical (and self-critical) Collaborative enquiry by Reflective
practitioners being Accountable and making the results of their
enquiry public, Self-evaluating their practice and engaged in
Participative problem-solving and continuing professional
development. (Zuber-Skerritt, 1992, p. 2)
Action research is considered to be an appropriate research model to use for
organisational change
... when it aims not only at technical and practical improvement,
the participants’ transformed consciousness, and change within
their organisation’s existing boundaries and conditions, but when
it also aims at changing the system itself or those conditions which
impede desired improvement in the organisation. (Zuber-Skerritt,
1996, pp. 84–85)
The researchers were guided by Winter’s (1996) ethical advice, as follows;

Relevant persons in the organisation are consulted in advance.

Aims and principles are accepted in advance by stakeholders.
Ethical approval is obtained if interviews/human subjects are involved.
Permission is obtained before observations made or documents produced
for other purposes are examined.

155
Mary Melrose & Maureen Reid

Descriptions of others’ work and points of view are negotiated with those
others before they are published.
All participants influence the work.
Those who do not participate are not coerced.
Research in process is visible, transparent.
Researchers must accept responsibility for maintaining confidentiality.
Although the dichotomy was not clearly articulated at the beginning of the
research project, there were two agendas or aims for the research project.
NZQA was funding a project to improve and spread good practice about
RPL. The research group was also interested in improving and spreading
good practice and understanding about action research as a powerful tool
for organisational learning and innovation. Aims that reflected critical action
research were emergent and unwritten. The initially agreed and
disseminated purposes of this particular action research project were
therefore:
to encourage collaborative action research between two organisations;
to improve our practice and learning about action research;
to test some principles of good assessment of prior learning practice;
to contribute to the development of policy and procedures related to the
granting of academic credit to experienced learners.

Project Membership and Progress

In Figure 2, the centre circle of the Daisy represents the AIT and BOPP staff
members in the core research group. Initially, the core research group
included a senior staff developer experienced in action research (from AIT),
the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Co-ordinator (from AIT), the RPL
coordinator who is the team leader of the Academic Development Unit (from
BOPP) and a Student Learning Centre staff member (from BOPP). All
academic staff at BOPP were invited to participate in order to make the
research inclusive and emancipatory. Five additional volunteer core group
members emerged.
Each Daisy petal in Figure 2 represents a separate petal group or
mini-project where a core group member carried out one or more of the
following:
worked with one or more students to trial RPL procedures in a new
subject area;
liased with an Industry Training Organisation (ITO) to implement RPL in
that industry;
worked with a group of staff in a particular subject area to empower them
to facilitate or assess prior learning.
By the end of the research, eight mini-projects had been initiated (Figure 2),
each with a core group member as convenor and leader. Some core group
members belonged to more than one mini-project. The RPL co-ordinator

156
 THE DAISY MODEL FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

from BOPP (in the centre of Figure 2) was a member of most mini-projects.
Depending on the aim and focus, each mini-project varied in duration and
membership. Members emerged from the BOPP academic board, teaching
teams, external assessors, students, prospective students, employers and
ITOs. Some mini-projects began in response to ITO or employer requests,
while others were triggered by RPL applicants, either enrolled at BOPP or at
the pre-enrolment stage. One mini-project centred on improving the
infrastructure and processes for RPL facilitation and assessment.
The first meeting of the core group was devoted to discussing broad
research aims and ethical considerations. Papers about action research
were disseminated and some mini-projects were tentatively planned. At
subsequent monthly core group meetings, individual and group practice
was reflected upon, in the context of both national and local changes in
education. Monthly meetings maintained momentum, but also allowed time
for the petal group meetings and action, and for the trialling of ideas or
developed materials. The staff developer from AIT, who did not have a mini-
project, facilitated reflection, critique and theory building at all meetings,
and was available for one to one consultation with any core group member
and as an invited facilitator for any petal group.
In another application of the Daisy Model (Melrose et al, 1998) some
core group meetings were devoted to group action, for example, to the
development of processes and tools. When the core group was in a
development phase and when it was carrying out agreed action together,
meetings needed to be more frequent than usual.
The core group was encouraged to recognise problem situations,
discuss the organisational context of these, generate possible solutions or
suggest interventions and evaluate actions taken. Mini-project (or petal)
convenors reflected, in turn, on their planned and actual actions, discussed
theory that had emerged about a situation, listened to feedback and critical
comment and set new plans. Time was allocated for problem solving,
interpretation of actions and discussion of newly generated theories. Key
questions which assisted with reflection on progress were: what happened,
when, why, who was involved, what issues arose, what would you do
differently now and why, what internal and external environmental factors
contributed to success or lack of progress, what advice would you give the
others in the group as a result of your experience? All opinions and
reflections were treated as of equal value. Self and group critique was
facilitated, along with critique of the process of the research. The headings
used to record meeting notes and to guide discussion at both core group
and mini-project meetings were actions taken (compared with actions
previously planned), observation, reflection and actions planned (for the
future). At each core group meeting, records were made of core group
members’ comments about the research process. Individual and group
theories were constructed about the research process, assessment of prior

157
Mary Melrose & Maureen Reid

learning and organisational change within the socio-political context in New

Zealand.
Core group members from BOPP acted as change agents for their
organisation during the research. As the context of the research altered,
mini-projects emerged or were suspended. Factors which influenced the
duration of mini-projects included conflicting demands on core group
members’ time, student needs and demands, and changes in staff interests,
roles or workloads. Aspects of local or national ITO activity, such as the
speed of development and placement of unit standards on the National
Qualification Framework (NQF), the availability of trained assessors, the
agreed level of financial support and the interaction of ITO representatives
with the local polytechnic and other providers, influenced some mini-
projects.

Reflections on Research Practice and Emergent Theory

There were three key foci for critical reflection and theory building during
and after this research project:
the stated purposes of the research project;
the roles of the facilitator(s) of the core group;
the activities (including theory building) of members of the core and petal
groups as the research progressed.
Each of these foci is discussed in this section.
The stated purposes of the research project, as listed above, were all
met. Participants believed that the RPL focused project should be continued
into the future. Collaborative research between the two polytechnics was
considered by participants to be beneficial for the educational practice of
both groups. Aspects of the RPL good practice guidelines, which had already
been developed at AIT (Reid et al, 1997), were tested by issues that arose
during the research. Some items were expanded or clarified; for example,
the roles of personnel involved in the RPL process, especially in facilitation,
assessment, moderation and infra-structural support. Ideas and
information that were exchanged between the polytechnics enhanced RPL
development and practice in both organisations. These included articulation
arrangements between the two institutions in order to improve financial
viability and educational pathways for students.
One of the factors considered by participants to be responsible for the
continuation of the project was the experience and knowledge of the
facilitators of the core group. Heron defines facilitator as ‘a person who has
the role of helping participants to learn in an experiential group’ (Heron,
1989, p. 11). Good facilitation is perceived by Heron as useful in enhancing
the development of either ‘interpersonal’ skills or ‘external and technical
skills’ by group members. Facilitation has been used to enhance teachers’
learning about student-centred approaches and also to assist the

158
 THE DAISY MODEL FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

development, action and practice of professional groups. In an educational

organisation, action researchers form an experiential learning group focused
on improving their own professional practice. However, although the
facilitator is important in monitoring and in giving feedback about group
process, group members are envisaged as primarily responsible for their
own learning as they autonomously exercise intelligence, choice and interest
(Heron, 1989).
The term ‘facilitator’ in the Daisy Model (Figure 1) does not imply
superiority to or inequality with the rest of the core group. However
‘facilitator’ does imply some specialist knowledge or skills, associated with
the practice of action research, which will be likely to enhance the process
of any action research project. McTaggart (1998b) implies that shared
commitment to improvement of a common practice by all members of an
action research group (commitment to negotiation of the research process,
the action and the generation of theory) is essential for effective action
research. Individual action, and theory on and in practice is strengthened
and validated by the group. The facilitator in the centre of a Daisy Model, in
agreeing to be convenor and commentator of the core group process, may
have a different kind of commitment from other participants. The facilitator
has a commitment to assist the others to use the power of the action
research method to their advantage, in order to improve their practice. The
facilitator also improves his or her practice as an action researcher, and
builds theory about action research. The core group has an emphasis on
building theory about an area of practice (RPL in the example provided).
Core group members will almost incidentally build theory about action
research in practice.
There is a second type of contribution that can be made by another
specialist, with expertise in the practice area, joining in the core group. In
this application of the Daisy Model, that focused on RPL, there were two
facilitators (indicated by numbered squares in Figure 2). The first facilitator
primarily provided expertise and information and asked critical questions
about the process of action research. The second facilitator primarily
provided expertise and information about RPL practice, as well as convening
meetings and providing administration for the core group. However, there
was some overlap in expertise between the facilitators. The action research
facilitator also had extensive knowledge of the area of practice, which was
the focus for improvement (RPL), and the second facilitator also had
experience in the application of critical social theory in research projects. In
an earlier application of the Daisy Model, one facilitator sufficed,
contributing expertise to both the research process and the field of practice
(Melrose et al, 1998). At the beginning of an action research project, the
participants need to consider how facilitation of the research process and
contribution of specialist knowledge about the practice area will be
provided. Is each already present in the core group, or will one or both be
sought externally?

159
Mary Melrose & Maureen Reid

McTaggart (1998b) and Kemmis (1994, cited in McTaggart, 1998b)

conceptualise action research as a social process designed to help all
participants learn more about their practice, and to construct practical
theories about their practices, the social structures which constrain or
enable their practices and the social context within which their practices are
realised. The facilitator(s) in the Daisy Model have the role of enhancing the
social process and learning of the group. It is possible that groups will
successfully follow the model of core group and petal groups without a
facilitator, but in the applications so far enacted, the facilitator was
considered essential by the other core group members. Some of the key
activities and attributes that were demonstrated by members of the research
groups while the research project progressed are listed in Table I.

Daisy Core Petal Group

(Core Research Group) (Miniproject Research Group)
Dialogue and debriefing Patience
Anticipatory planning Ethics
Involvement of peers in theory building Timeliness and trialling ideas
Self-evaluation and reflection Action
Yes you are on the right track Leadership
(affirmation)

Critical feedback, critical friendship Grounded theory generation

Observations analysed Reflection
Reality check Observation
Evaluation of progress of whole project Understanding
Participation by stakeholders

Table I. Key activities and attributes demonstrated by members of the research

groups while the research project progressed.

Although, to some extent, all of the above activities occurred in the core
group and in petal groups, the above patterns were emphasised, including
the place of leadership and participation by stakeholders. Members of the
core group were able to contribute as equals to the overall research process.
However, in the petal group, the core member was the leader of the research
process. The petal groups, by virtue of their ability to multiply and expand,
had the potential to involve many extra stakeholders in the research. Petal
groups worked best when an organisational impetus for change or
improvement stimulated the involvement of stakeholders in addition to the
core group.
The core group contained committed members who had an interest in
improving organisational systems and/or group actions by virtue of their
current or future role in the organisation. Included in this core group were
people responsible for implementing and improving RPL policy and
procedures at each of the two organisations. Academic staff in the core
group had an urgent need to provide facilitation and assessment of prior
learning in their subject areas and/or programmes. Therefore, a mix of

160
 THE DAISY MODEL FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

administrators, teachers and managers provided the viewpoints and

contextual interpretation that were important for this type of research
(Fetterman, 1982). Although the Daisy Model proved robust enough to
ensure the entire research project continued even if some core members and
their petals disappeared, continuation of most members in the core was
believed by the group to be essential. Members of the core who dropped out
did so because of role changes or because their line manager was not
prepared to resource time release for core group or subgroup meetings and
actions. One petal group ceased because of a change in external policy. A
researcher commented ‘the ITO may be making this (RPL) application
redundant with a transition action plan, so time has been wasted by the
applicant and by BOPP staff.’ The internal and external context did indeed
influence the process of research while the researchers were attempting to
influence their organisation.
Some initial experience and knowledge of action research, and also
some expert knowledge of the practice area of the research project already
existed for individuals in the core group. However, collectively the group
built knowledge and experiences about both research processes and the
research topic. Several core group members commented that they had
learnt how important it was to consult in advance (Winter, 1996) in order to
have support from power holders in their organisation to positively influence
the process and outcomes of a research project. Positive comments about
action research included ‘we had enforced reflection time’, ‘networking was
enhanced’, ‘I found out there were multiple views, perceptions about any
development’, and ‘action research is a vehicle for bringing other people into
decision making’. As one core group member commented, ‘one Head of
Department now has an intimate knowledge of RPL and has become a
positive influence in developing BOPP processes.’
Winter’s (1996) ethical guidelines were of paramount importance to
establishing the principles of group process. It was necessary to clarify roles
for obtaining ethical approval in both organisations, liaising with people in
powerful positions, finding members of petal groups, keeping credible
records, critically analysing the process of meetings, interpreting actions
and asking critical questions about theory building. Sometimes roles
changed as the research progressed. It was vital to discuss the importance
of valuing contributions equally, giving and acknowledging feedback and
critical support. Negotiation of the ownership of research results and
outputs proved essential at the beginning of the research. Only two of the
group, the facilitators, maintained a commitment to writing reports and
papers for external readers. Accountability to NZQA and commitment to
dissemination of results to a scholarly audience were the main motivators
for the facilitators. The facilitators were very concerned with ethical research
practices. The remainder of the core group, as less experienced researchers,
seemed focused on ethical practice of RPL. The core group believed that they
benefited from discussing ethical implications for stakeholders and others

161
Mary Melrose & Maureen Reid

affected by the action research process. For example, in one mini-project,

there were questions about the ethics of academic staff assessing RPL for an
applicant who was an existing student and the desire to protect anonymity
of the assessor, while still maintaining assessor accountability.
The research had unintended, wider-reaching effects than those
anticipated, in parallel with a developing understanding of how the
members of the core group might interact during an action research
process. As they met and interacted between official meeting times, the core
group members developed concepts about their own educational practices
in the context of the social construction of each organisation. Group
members contributed at BOPP to the development of an embryonic research
culture, to quality management systems, to the processes of academic
committees, to staff development sessions and to curriculum development.
A core group member from BOPP commented, ‘Learning was about the use
of action research for policy development and organisational change in
general, not just for RPL.’ Another commented that the research had been ‘a
catalyst for RPL and action research can do that with other issues’. There
were also more materials exchanged between the two polytechnics than
originally intended. These included not only RPL policies and procedures,
but also participant information sheets and consent forms for qualitative
research, documentation for quality management systems, methods for
recording credits in student records, and academic promotion policy and
procedures.
As the core group built knowledge and understanding about action
research, they also built knowledge and theory about the practice area of
RPL. Many of these insights were about the interplay between the
organisational roles of group members, RPL applicants, other staff or
community members. For example, reflections included:
We need to establish how much information is needed by the
applicant at each meeting – and who provides it.

RPL facilitators must build a positive relationship with the

programme teachers as well as the applicant.

There should be a relationship between RPL fees, the facilitation

and assessment efforts by staff, the quantity of credit and the
moderation needed of the portfolio by someone else.

The Student Learning Centre staff need to be involved more in

applicant support and facilitation.
The power of the group for problem solving and innovative thinking at core
group meetings was acknowledged. Examples of issues that were brought to
the group included: the volume of work of the RPL coordinators, the size of
application portfolios, which became a daunting task for applicants, and
how to approach employers and ITO members about RPL.

162
 THE DAISY MODEL FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

There was one issue, that of credibility of evidence, where increasing

understanding of the research process complemented increasing
understanding of the RPL topic. Evidence of action research based theory
building depended on systematic, rigorous collection and interpretation of
data. Evidence of prior learning by the applicant depended on sufficiency of
documentation, triangulation of current evidence from credible sources and
integrity of assessment. Growing understanding by the group about credible
evidence and judgement of evidence led to queries such as ‘should the
assessors know or teach the applicant?’ and ‘how do we know if letters of
attestation by previous employers are genuine?’
Some core group members were concerned with the development and
improvement of tools and policy at a technical level. All were interested in
improving their own practice of administering, organising, facilitating or
assessing RPL. However, most also used the group to critically analyse the
organisational and societal context, to recognise barriers and opportunities
in order to improve the RPL and other aspects of their work. In terms of
Carr & Kemmis’s (1983) types of action research, the action research
process moved members of the core group from a technical to a practical
and then to a critical approach. Some group members also became
advocates for the use of action research at an organisational level. The
experience of the core group therefore reinforced the CRASP model of Zuber-
Skerrit (1992), who maintains that action research is ideal for
organisational development and process management. As a result of the
research, the group was better able to understand the intricate interactions
between government initiatives, industry and community groups,
educational curricula, and the individuals who work, study or teach within
an educational institution.

Conclusions
An advantage of the Daisy Model for organisational improvement or
development is its flexibility to cope with changing personnel and sudden
demands from an organisation. Petals (mini-projects) may be discontinued
or be added to the core without impeding the progress of the whole project.
As a BOPP researcher commented, ‘Groups beginning and ending are part of
the process’.
This model makes realistic provision for keeping every person in the
research group engaged and committed to an action research project, and
allows people to join, leave and rejoin as long as the core group remains
viable. The Daisy Model encourages core group members to take leadership
roles in mini-projects and to actively involve other participants from the
organisation.
The authors have used the Daisy Model twice: for the development of
academic promotion policy and processes (Melrose et al, 1998) and for
improving RPL policy and processes (Melrose & Reid, 1997). They are

163
Mary Melrose & Maureen Reid

currently applying the model to an innovative distance learning project on

the development of career practitioners. It is recommended that the Daisy
Model be applied in any situation where a group of researchers wish to use
the collective power of a core group to support them through the complexity
and rigour of an action research project, with a focus on a specific and
common area of practice.

Acknowledgements
The following people contributed to the application of this model: from
Auckland Institute of Technology – Margaret Horsburgh, Phil Ker; from Bay
of Plenty Polytechnic – Ian Taylor, Greg Hendren, Lois Kelly, Jaye McIssaac,
Sue McDonald, Noki Martin. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority
(NZQA) funded meetings, at the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, as part of a
national research project on Assessment of Prior Learning.

Correspondence
Dr Mary Melrose, Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research),
Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland,
New Zealand (mary.melrose@aut.ac.nz).

Note
[1] Auckland Institute of Technology (AIT) became Auckland University of
Technology (AUT) on 1 January 2000.

References
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1983) Becoming Critical: knowing through action research.
Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Education Amendment Act (1990) Wellington: New Zealand Government Printer.
Fetterman, F. (1982) Ethnography in Educational Research: the dynamics of
diffusion, Educational Researcher, 11(3), pp. 17–22.
Heron, J. (1989) The Facilitator’s Handbook. London: Kogan Page.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988) The Action Research Planner, 3rd edn. Victoria:
Deakin University Press.
Ker, P. (1993) Implementing Processes for the Recognition of Prior Learning, paper
presented at the Tertiary Education Conference, 21–23 April, Wellington.
McTaggart, R. (1998a) Participatory Action Research: how to do research inside and
outside classrooms, seminar at Kohia Teachers Centre, Auckland, 30 June.
McTaggart, R. (1998b) Is Validity Really an Issue for Action Research? Seminar at
Auckland College of Education, 30 June.
Melrose, M. & Reid, M. (1997) Assessment of Prior Learning Research Project, Phase 4.
Bay of Plenty and Auckland Institute of Technology Collaborative Action Research

164
 THE DAISY MODEL FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

Project. Progress Report to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Auckland:

Auckland Institute of Technology.
Melrose, M., Blackburn, M., Cullen, J. & Ufton, K. (1998) Academic Staff Appraisal for
Promotion: a New Zealand polytechnic experience, Advancing International
Perspectives, Research and Development in Higher Education (20), Proceedings
of the 1997 Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and
Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), 8–11 July. Adelaide: ETV
Printing.
Reid, M., Ker, P., Melrose, M. & Horsburgh, M. (1997) Assessment of Prior Learning
Research Project, Phase 3: Workplace Assessment and Assessment of Prior
Learning Survey 1997, 1997 Follow up to National Survey (1996) on Assessment of
Prior Learning, Draft Assessment of Prior Learning Practice Guidelines, Progress
Report to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Auckland: Auckland Institute
of Technology.
Winter, R. (1996) Some Principles and Procedures for the Conduct of Action Research,
in O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.) New Directions in Action Research. London: Falmer
Press.
Winter, R. (1998) Finding a Voice – thinking with others: a conception of action
research, Educational Action Research, 6, pp. 53–68.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992) Action Research in Higher Education: examples and
reflection. London: Kogan Page.
Zuber-Skerritt, I. (1996) Emancipatory Action Research for Organisational Change
and Management Development, in O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.) New Directions in
Action Research. London: Falmer Press.

165