In my former school, action research was expected of every teacher, and was understood as a mechanism that should drive the continuous evolution of the school. The teachers’ embeddedness was required for their Action Research - which, by our definition, could not be conducted by an outsider. Because the insights and new strategies were developed by teachers, recommendations were trusted, contextually-appropriate and  culturally-sustaining, and faculty buy-in was fairly automatic. Leadership and management were charged with modifying other factors (structure, systems, management practices) in response to the insights and recommendations of teachers — and this is where we ran into trouble. But in the ideal, change in the organization was driven by teachers, who often collaborated with each other and students to conduct action research. By extension: teachers would be continuously constructing the Model of the organization to understand what is causing changes in performance (outcomes that are collectively deemed important by the teachers, students, families, and nation). 

Burke described the role of an OD consultant, who conducts action research in order to generate understanding and build a causal model of performance/change for the organization. I’m wondering how an external consultant conducts action research, since participation/embeddedness seems necessary for this method of producing understanding. Burke emphasized that the OD Consultant should not directly intervene, but simply feed findings to leadership - implementation is entirely up to the members of the organization - which seems like an important boundary. Is a premise of this course that schools can/should change through participant-driven processes, where the research required for diagnosis is conducted by teachers and students? When is an external consultant helpful? (The Tang Institute at Phillips Academy seems to function a bit like a consultant, but does introduce external ideas to the school, and also supports faculty fellows conducting action research… I’m working to better understand the role of Tang in change processes.) 

A few other questions came to mind: 

To build a causal model for Phillips Academy, I need a deeper understanding of its history. This will help me understand why the culture exists the way it does. In particular, I am interested in Philips Academy’s assessment systems – which are also currently in the limelight at the school. 

I have been thinking about the assessment system as an engine for a schools’ culture — understanding that what is rewarded by assessment inevitably becomes the values of the organization. (Burke mentions this briefly in terms of “reward system” at the top of p.529) Assessment systems seem to shape culture, and therefore would be an essential lever for transformational change. 
(Susannah)