lisapgblog.files.wordpress.com · web viewin this report i will demonstrate the learning i have...
TRANSCRIPT
Lisa Peacock
PGDP Education and Training
Action Research - Can Empathy be increased through taught input in the
Classroom?
In this report I am going to explore Action Research (AR) in the context of
researching if Empathy can be increased through taught input in the classroom. The
purpose of this AR is to improve the quality of my teaching practice as trainee
teacher within a Further Education setting and to understand more about my practice
with a view to supporting my development. Throughout the study I have utilised
reflective models designed by Kolb and Schon to structure my reflections with a view
to increasing my understanding. In this report I will demonstrate the learning I have
gained from this AR using Schon’s reflective model. I will discuss what happened in
the study and my emotional responses, make subjective judgements about how the
study went, attempt to make sense of the study and draw conclusions from the
experience. Lastly, I will consider what I will do differently as a result of this study
and how I can extend my research and my plan of action moving forwards with the
knowledge I have gained from the AR. This process will support my own personal
and professional development. I have utilised AR as a method of enquiry for this
study and I will outline the ethical considerations I have taken into account to protect
the students. Throughout the AR I have worked in partnership with my mentor and
she has taken the role of critical evaluator and advisor to support my learning “show
how you have worked with others to build a sense of purposeful community” Sacks
(2006) cited in McNiff (2006). I will evaluate how this has supported my development
and extended my learning throughout the process.
The participants in the study group are a group of 19 students enrolled on the Health
and Social Care Level 2 Diploma who are aged between 16 to 18 years of age. The
design of the study relates to Empathy and involves implementing taught input within
the classroom with a view to investigating if Empathy levels can be increased. The
taught input involves supporting students to increase their awareness of empathic
responses and the lesson plans utilised can be viewed in the Appendix documents.
The criteria and standards of judgement to ascertain if this AR project has been
1
successful in increasing empathic awareness will be the data produced before and
after taught input. This data will include both an Empathy quotient questionnaire and
written submissions by the students. This data will then be analysed and interpreted
to determine if a change has taken place. The report will show that the AR data
received and analysed did indeed evidence a shift in the Empathy quotient scores
and the written submissions from the students demonstrated an understanding of the
key terms and meanings of Empathy. However, I will discuss the data findings
alongside the validity issues of the study, my AR limitations and my findings from
reflective processes which have all impacted on the final data outcomes. The subject
content is in line with my primary beliefs and values in terms of my view that
Empathy should be at the very core of all Health and Social Care Provision and this
was the rationale for my AR.
Empathy is a complex multi-faceted concept with cognitive, emotive and behavioural,
elements. For the purposes of this report as defined in the British Journal of General
Practice (2002) the empathy is defined as having an ability to: (a) understand the
patient's situation, perspective, and feelings (and their attached meanings); (b) to
communicate that understanding and (c) to act on that understanding with the patient
in a helpful (therapeutic) way. The rationale for this study is as a direct result of my
experience within teaching practice having worked with two previous groups of
students on the Health and Social Diploma course. I was concerned that within their
200 hour placement in Health and Social care settings that they were unprepared in
relation to the underpinning values of Health and Social care (e.g. person centred
approaches and primarily Empathy.) This had become evident not only from
previous students written work submissions but also through by my direct
observations of their practice in the placement settings. After giving this matter
consideration and considering my underpinning beliefs, I was led to the writings of
Carl Rogers as the founder of the Person Centred approach and an advocate of
Empathy, a core value to his theoretical studies. I started to consider if empathy
could be increased through taught input in the classroom “living in the direction of
their educational and social values” Long (2003) cited in McNiff (2006). I viewed that
having the ability to understand real emotions and reactions from the individual
service user’s perspectives on placement could potentially help the students to
become more effective practitioners. Through reflection I have come to the
2
conclusion that my conviction in the person centred approach centred on Empathy
as a core value influences my practice on a day to day basis. My findings, after
reflecting further on the AR study demonstrated that this conviction alongside the
professional stake I had in the outcome of the AR resulted in me unintentionally
influencing the outcome. Due to my personally high level of investment in the AR
study I actually changed my teaching practice in terms of increasing my enthusiasm
in the classroom.
As noted Empathy is key in Health and Social Care and studies have shown that
empathy should be at the heart of Care with Yu and Kirk (2008) et al work assessing
the impact of empathy in healthcare and nurse patient relationships “crucial
component of quality care” Reynolds et al (1999) cited in Mercer and Reynolds
(2002). Carl Rogers work (1951) has been instrumental in terms of defining Empathy
as relating to the understanding of peoples beliefs, values and ideas, the significance
that their situation has for them and their associated feelings. Indeed, Empathy is
viewed as having a therapeutic effect within nurse patient relationship McCabe et al
(2004). In consideration of this I assessed the curriculum for the Health and Social
Care Diploma and found that no unit or module covered the concept of Empathy. It
was at this point I decided on the theme for my AR and intended to work on a study
which could potentially contribute to new practice.
I began to draw up the research proposal (attached Appendix) and raised this with
my mentor. We discussed my proposed methodology at this initial set up stage and
talked about the feasibility of the study itself. In terms of the students, it was
important for me to be open and honest particularly when talking about the purpose
of the AR. I gave ethical considerations priority during my discussions with the
students and I ensured that all the information was transparently set out in the
informed consent (please see Appendix). This met with my need to ensure that the
student’s autonomy was protected and to enable them to make an informed decision
as to whether they wanted to participate in the study. I gave due consideration to the
ethical principle of ‘beneficence’ in relation to ensuring no harm came to the students
and that it would be ‘of benefit’ in line with the British Psychological Society ethical
guidelines. I evidenced my commitment to ensuring their anonymity and
confidentiality throughout the study and provided assurances that I would protect
3
their privacy at all times. The students were fully informed prior to the data gathering
process as to how their data would be collected stored and later used. To ensure
adherence to GDPR / Data Protection guidelines all the information obtained both
written and computerised was held anonymously with full anonymity being
guaranteed to all research participants. The AR project was devised with a nil
hypotheses and my data gathering and analysis ideals were to identify qualitative
perceptions via means of inductive and thematic processes for the learner’s written
works. The data gathering process was twofold. The first part of the study was for
the students to take the quotient score questionnaire at the start of the study, and
then two weeks later after receiving taught input. The second part of the data
gathering related to the students providing written statements in relation to their
understanding of Empathy. The quotient scores were based on the students
subjective perceptions and I was very aware that due to the positivistic domination of
research methodology that this subjective data could be considered invalid from
research data perspectives. However, in my opinion research within social sciences
is primarily based upon quantitative information and often serves to test pre-existing
hypothesis. “Empirical research a myth” Thomas (1991) p.40 cited in McNiff (2006).
To remain congruent with my personal beliefs and values it was important for me to
veer away from this positivistic paradigm and to counter this reductive methodology
through using qualitative methods “his experience is his reality “Rogers (1959) cited
in Joseph (2005).
The timeline of the AR study was limited and from introduction to implementation the
research in its entirety took place over a four week period. Firstly, the topic was
introduced and discussed with the students, informed consents were received (see
attached Appendix). The following week the taught input commenced and took place
over two 1.5 hour classes full lesson plans can be viewed (see attached Appendix).
As detailed in the lesson plans the input within the classroom focused solely on
Empathy to support learning in relation to this topic. This was with the purpose of
finding out if direct taught input could contribute to the increase of learner’s quotient
scores. After reading around research methods and having discussions with my
mentor, I learned that it is usually advisable to use more than one research method
in the same study to support the validity of any data captured. To obtain data
triangulation validity, in addition to the self-completed questionnaire students were
4
asked to write about what they had learned in relation to empathy and what empathy
means to them after the taught input had concluded. The first set of data in relation
to the Empathy scale quotient was obtained with the students completing the
questions online subjectively. The final set of data was obtained two weeks later
after taught input had been completed. The students completed the Empathy
quotient scale online for a second time and completed written subjective statements
in relation to Empathy. My mentors input during the AR study was invaluable to me
and her critical evaluation throughout helped me to remain focused and on track
My mentor noted that the research methodology was not scientific and we had an in-
depth conversation in relation to my values as a social constructivist. My mentor
raised questions in relation to validity in terms of the non-scientific nature of self-
reports and qualitative data. A discussion was had in relation to the research
process and we looked at the nil hypothesis nature of the study i.e. that I was not
looking for cause and effect outcomes. Discussions also took place in relation to
validity issues with qualitative studies in general and my personal beliefs in relation
to individuals being the expert on their own experiencing. I noted that for this AR the
students as participant’s subjective data stands in opposition to the positivist’s views
and that the students and myself as facilitator were constructing knowledge rather
than trying to discover it. “knowledge is ambiguous, created as well as discovered”
McNiff (2006) p. 32. Based on Baptiste (2004). My mentor and I met up weekly to
discuss the AR and she brought important critical aspects which refined my thought
processes. These inspired me to reflect and rethink my study design for future
implementation which I will expand on in my conclusion section. My mentor noted
that the introduction of alternative empathy questionnaires and scales would support
future research design validity with a view to being able to repeat research methods
and generate more data. This was agreed between both parties and I noted that is
something we can look to do at a later stage but that unfortunately, due to the time
limitations of the research project this was not possible to implement at this stage.
The mentor also raised the issue of the appropriateness of the quotient
questionnaire questions for the Level 2 students. I read the questionnaire and
agreed that the questions were appropriate for the understanding of the students
within the group. I felt that this was a valid question which was important in terms of
every learner being able to adequately access and contribute to the research and to
5
the validity of the research project as a whole. We talked about the balance between
non-interference in the study of the researcher and the possible need to clarify some
of the questions to ensure the students fully understood the questions. I noted that it
might be appropriate to introduce the questionnaire first in a lesson next time we
repeat the study and to ask students to write down any terms/questions they need
clarification on. This could then lead to a discussion within the classroom to clarify
meanings and context. This can be incorporated should the research be taken
forward and shared among the level 2 groups. We noted that it would be interesting
to compare results with the first groups where this has not occurred to analyse the
impact of word definitions and understanding checks within the quotient scale
questions. We discussed AR as a whole in terms of discovering shared and
communal transformative practice and working cooperatively towards combined
aims and objectives within education. I have read around AR and found that it has
been influenced by the works of John Dewey, Jean Piaget and Kurt Lewin working
towards developing new innovative communities of practice “break free from the
norms of rules and unwritten power dynamics” Glassman et al (2013) p 273
It was important for me to counter the methodological criticism levelled at AR and to
do this I remained objective and carried out personal reflection to ensure any
potential researcher bias did not corrupt the data obtained “assumptions structure all
research” Banister (1994). In line with Fullan (2003) cited in BERA (2014) findings,
when researching AR as a process it was difficult for me to find published research
studies detailing applied substantiation of practitioner led developments where the
research issues have been raised by teaching practitioners themselves. This caused
me to question the credibility of AR as a research process and how much it is valued
in the world of research. AR is viewed as a ‘process of transformation’ with theorists
Lippitt and Radke (1946) cited in Glassman (2013) coining this phrase when
researching discrimination among social groups and status power dynamics based
on Glassman et al (2013). Additionally, Freire’s AR work in (1970) focused on
disparity within societal structures based on Glassman (2013).My views are that any
research process highlighting inequalities within social structures could be viewed as
an unsavoury political movement which would impact on its popularity. It is evident
that AR has political origins linking to social justice ideals and this element is often
critiqued alongside the methodology used in AR which is on large reflective practice
6
by the researchers and viewed by some, as unscientific in line with positivistic
research methods. The knowledge is contested with theorists such as Isai et.al (2012)
noting that AR cannot be transparently carried out due to its engrained validity flaws
which cannot be overcome and Somekh (1995) arguing that AR does not employ
acknowledge methodology processes BERA (2014). This adversely affects its
credibility as a research method within the world of research. To combat this Schon
(1995) integrated teaching and research through his theory of knowledge directly
relating to teaching practice and this gave credence to the AR process. However,
Garcia and Roblin, Scherman et al (2008) based on BERA (2014), view that carrying
out research alongside teaching would not be possible due to time constraints and in
my experience I consider this to be relevant within my educational setting today. The
teachers within my department have such high workloads and time demands in
terms of teaching, marking, planning, and administrative processes that this leaves
little head space yet alone time or energy to engage meaningfully in Action
Research. Additionally AR does not appear to be valued within the department as
through investigation I have found that no other teacher within the department has
engaged with the AR process to date. AR will need to ensure transparency in terms
of validity to combat these criticisms and be promoted within teaching departments
as a way of co-working to tackle real issues within the workplace “practitioner
enquiry” Baumfield et al (2013) cited in BERA (2014). This grass roots way of
working by directly investigating real life practitioner issues and finding solutions
through co-working processes could be viewed as being of real benefit to managers
and departments within educational settings. This way of working together as
practitioners critically evaluating data, processes and outcomes would also serve to
demonstrate a more robust validity process for research purposes. BERA (2014).
For my AR project the data I have gathered in terms of raw data from the quotient
scores can be found below.
This data details the students names with each student being assigned a letter of the
alphabet A, B C etc. through to S for 19 students in total. This data gives the quotient
score on the first date the students took the online test 5.11.18 prior to any taught
input and on the second date the students took the quotient test 19.11.18 after the
taught input had taken place. The third column details the difference between
scores both positive and negative. After analysing this data, I have devised a bar
7
chart graph to present the findings in a clear format to demonstrate the difference in
comparisons between the two dates. The next page details a pie chart which
demonstrates the quotient percentage change over this period of time of students
whose scores increased, remained the same and decreased. The first taught input
session took place on 12.11.18 and the second taught lesson of input 17.11 18.
The quotient test is based on 50 Questions and can be viewed at https://psychology-
tools.com/empathy-quotient
Raw Data
Stude
nt Quotient Score Quotient Score Difference
5.11.18 19.11.18 Pos Neg
A 50 39 -11
B 59 61 2
C 45 46 1
D 33 54 21
E 27 32 5
F 43 58 15
G 35 37 2
H 45 39 -6
I 42 50 8
J 32 36 4
K 19 7 -12
L 56 58 2
M 27 38 11
N 43 68 26
O 48 57 9
P 67 73 6
Q 31 32 1
R 35 35 0
S 44 53 9
8
This Bar chart depicts the student scores over a period of time. The Orange bar
shows the data score as of the 5.11.18 and the Blue bar shows the data score after
taught input on 19.11.18
9
This Pie Chart shows the percentage of students who had an increase in their
Empathy questionnaire quotient score after taught input which equates to 79% of the
students. 16% of the students Empathy quotient score decreased and 5% of the
students’ scores remained the same.
The next set of data relates to thematic analysis based on the submissions of the 19
students written work and the original data can be viewed as raw data (please see
attached Appendix). This data was anonymised for confidentiality purposes. I
understand that thematic analysis can be difficult to compare and attempts to
generalise the findings can be problematic however, when combined with the
10
quotient scores I felt that this would be the best process for this participatory
research to demonstrate that understanding had taken place in relation to Empathy. I
initially considered coding each word, however, I then made the analytical decision
to code meaningful words in the context of Empathy in an attempt to classify the data
which made connections to Empathy as a theme.
Data coding was carried out through analysing the sentences and themed analysis
was applied with data coded into 6 key categories associated with Empathy
1 Respect
2 Understand
3 Others perspectives
4 Feel better
5 Reassured
6 Valued
These themes gathered across the data sets are important to the description of
empathy as a phenomenon and my rationale is that if the students are using words
describing these themes then learning and/or understanding is taking place.
Data
Presentation
Categories
CODE
S
SCOR
E
PERCENTAG
E
RESPECT 1 2 10.5%
UNDERSTAND 2 15 84%
OTHERS
PERSPECTIVES 3 19 100%
FEEL BETTER 4 4 21%
REASSURE 5 1 5%
11
Findings
Although there is a marked increase in the Empathy quotient scores and this can be
contributed to the taught input the students have received as a causal relationship.
The participant group was small with only 19 students taking part and to demonstrate
validity the AR would need to be repeated and the results analysed. In addition the
written statements from the students do demonstrate their understanding relating to
Empathy as a concept through the use of key words and thematic dialogue. However
I view that more evidence would be needed to demonstrate an increase in
knowledge perhaps an alteration to the study design with the students submitting
written statements prior to taught input and after taught input would evidence a
12
change in their knowledge and understanding levels. In light of my reflections I feel
that in order to move this AR study further within the Department I would need to
validate that my conclusions are fair and accurate. I have discussed the findings
further with my mentor and we have agreed that to ensure validity rigour of the
processes the study would need to be carried out with other Level 2 groups to obtain
comparisons. I have pulled out of the data obtained the information I wish to stand as
evidence in support of my claim to knowledge, this being that I have influenced
learning in relation to Empathy. The data presentation evidences that the students
Empathy levels have increased after receiving taught input and this has in effect
been the creation of my own theory of practice. The findings are a useful basis for
further testing and research however they cannot be attributed solely in terms of a
cause and effect as being a direct result of taught input. Due to the small sample
size of research participants there are difficulties in generalising the finding from this
study. Additionally, due to the subjective nature of qualitative research there are
complications in carrying out exact replications of the research study. As detailed
throughout this report Empathy is considered to be an underpinning value to health
and social care particularly when reviewing The Francis Report, the Keogh Report
and the Cavendish Review. These reviews have all highlighted and emphasised the
centrality of compassion in the care we deliver and have placed this within policy
context in the NHS. In particular, in relation to the underpinning concept of the
approaches view regarding each person’s experiencing of their own individual
subjective existence. ”internal frame of reference” Rogers (1961) cited in
Kirshenbaum. As such the methodology of the AR was also in line with my personal
value system and beliefs. After reflection came a realisation that with such a deep
investment in the underpinning belief of the value of empathy within Health and
Social care it was important for me to consider what my influence on the study had
been. Although I had set out to remain unbiased during my research in terms of
taking an impartial stance in relation to the data and processes as a whole, I realised
as Kincheloe points out in BERA (2014) that there are difficulties in remaining neutral
throughout a research project. My values, beliefs and views around Empathy and in
relation to how knowledge is obtained were intertwined and interlocked both within
the design of the AR, the methodological processes, data gathering, analysis and
conclusion stage, this was unavoidable. In a bid to counter any bias and fulfil the
need to remain an impartial researcher I have been transparent in relation to these
13
points throughout and have endeavoured to clearly state my personal views for the
reader. With a project of this nature reflection was key throughout to inform my
thinking around the study and my personal professional development considering at
all times what I was learning throughout about me as a practitioner.
I utilised Kolb’s reflective model in relation to reflecting on this point and consider
that the results will be very important for my future practice and continued
professional development.
Concrete Experience
Through reflection on my teaching over the two weeks of this AR study I have
realised that my teaching style was more enthusiastic than usual. I was fully
immersed with the subject content due to my personal beliefs and values and I also
had a high personal investment in the outcome for my AR. I wanted the students to
understand the impact Empathy can have on individuals receiving services in health
care settings, hospitals, nursing home and learning disability services.
Reflective Observation
The personal and professional investment I had with the subject content may have
impacted on the outcomes of the study itself as my teaching style changed. I started
the teaching process feeling excited at having this opportunity and total control over
the lesson plans and the scheme of work. I had been given autonomy to teach in line
with my values and feel that my practice had a new sense of passion and vitality
which may well have increased the motivation of the students.
Abstract Conceptualisation
Due to the nature of the study, its alignment with my personal beliefs and values and
my investment in the lessons in terms of the AR, my teaching was more enthusiastic
I had more of a buy in with the outcomes as I wanted the taught input to increase the
students learning around Empathy it was important to me both personally and
professionally. I could not filter out the bias in terms of my teaching style and this
affected my behaviour within the classroom.
Active Experimentation – Planning and trying out what you have learned
14
To filter this out of the study in terms of impact on outcomes another teacher would
need to deliver the content of the AR study and analyse the results to check
comparisons of data. On a separate note, I want to feel this same level of
enthusiasm in my subject content teaching on a day to day basis and I feel this can
be achieved by taking a more active role in lesson planning and carrying out further
AR.
My claim to knowledge is that Empathy can be increased through taught input and
this could be applied to any concept difficult to say this with cause and effect as so
many variables to filter. The findings relate to the research question. After the data
had been obtained and analysed I met with my mentor and as a critical evaluator
and she asked if it was reasonable to assume that the students had actually had
enough time to change their level of Empathy within the short timescales of the AR.
She noted that they had only had two lessons of taught input in relation to the
subject content. It was agreed that ideally the timescale of taught input would be
longer but I noted that these were the parameters of the study. I suggested that the
students could possibly take the questionnaire test again towards the end of their
placement or even mid-point and end of placement or termly to analyse further how
this has impacted on their Empathy scores. Having the opportunity to experience
the links between theories into practice may lead to further changes in the data
scores. We also discussed other sources of evidence and data gathering for future
AR research on this topic in terms of semi-structured interviews and feedback from
third parties which may serve to give more triangulation on the data if we are to
develop this moving forward into our schemes of work
My ideas around future research include testing the effects of taught input on two
comparable groups of Level 2 students, one of which would receive the learning and
the other group who would not receive any taught input. This would give further
opportunity for comparison and strengthen validity for any future knowledge claims.
As previously noted my mentor suggested the introduction of alternative empathy
scales and questionnaires to generate more data and the possible need to clarify
some of the quotient questions prior to commencing the studies with the students.
The AR process has deepened my knowledge in relation to teaching and learning
and I have been inspired by carrying out the AR study as to me this has been a
15
worthwhile cause and I am optimistic that future development of the study can
support Health and Social Care workers of the future on the Level 2 courses to gain
understanding of increased empathy to support their practitioner development. This
had led to improvements in my professional development, empowered me and
opened my mind to the possibility of being able to contribute to the development of
the curriculum through carrying out valid research with my colleagues rather than
mechanically teaching third party material. It is important to me that my practice
actively encourages the development of Empathy within new health and social care
practitioners. This AR process has changed how I view teaching and my emerging
understanding of my own role within practice. I am excited to think that I could be
involved in creating new epistemologies to make additions to the curriculum for
health and social care qualifications.
As previously noted within my Further Education setting research does not appear
to be given a priority or focus of any importance, with all the practitioners I spoke to
within the department noting that they have not carried out any research since
passing their teaching qualification and for many this was over 20 years ago. To
alleviate this I feel that it would be important to speak to management and the quality
improvement practitioners with an aim of linking future research agendas to the
College improvement initiatives on a pilot basis. Outcomes could then be assessed
in terms of relevance and capacity to improve practice. If real results were achieved
then I feel that AR could be given the space and time required with a recognition and
focus for practitioners to engage in.
For this AR study I feel that it would be important to repeat the quotient questionnaire
and the written submissions to achieve validity over time. It would be interesting to
carry out this data gathering process again when the students are on placement as
they may have a deeper perception of empathy and empathic responses after
experiencing these within care settings. For this particular research process as noted
there were issues in relations to time limitations and weaknesses in terms of
methodological rigour due to my perceived change in teaching approach. Although I
was careful not to add any researcher bias there is the possibility of implied research
bias may have taken place during the study
16
Holistically reflecting on the AR process I now view that there is reasonable evidence
to suggest that Empathy can be increased through taught input and importantly for
me I have learned that my teaching practice can be more effective if I am truly
immersed with the subject content. In order to find and repeat this enthusiasm in my
day to day practice I feel that incorporating this sense of autonomy will be key to me
achieving this goal. I have achieved a new sense of confidence in my teaching ability
to enable me to start to include more innovation in my planning to work towards this
objective.
17
References
Baptiste, I. (2001) Qualitative data analysis; Common phases, strategic differences
Vol 2 No 3 Art 22 http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de0114-fqs0103226
Barnett, A. (2011) How to argue. Smarter Study Skills Pearson 3rd Ed
Coffey, A & Atkinson, P. (1996) Making sense of qualitative data: complementary
research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage
Freire, P. (1973) Education for critical consciousness. Whitstable Litho Straker
Brothers Ltd
Glassman, M. Erdem, G. Bartholomew, M. (2013) Action Research and its History as
an Adult Education Movement for Social Change. Adult Education Quarterly. Sage
publications
Hopkins, D. (2008) A Teachers Guide to Classroom research. Maidenhead; Open
University Press
Joseph, S. (2003) The Psychologist. Vol 16 No 6. Why the client knows best
Kirschenbaum, H. & Henderson, V. L. (1989) The Carl Rogers Reader Houghton
Mifflin Company. New York
Hopkins, D (2008) A Teachers Guide to Classroom research. Maidenhead; Open
University Press
Leat, D. Lofthouse, R. Reid, A. Teachers Views: Perspectives on Research
Engagement Introduction. Research and Teachers Education Inquiry BERA
accessed via Moodle on 6.12.18
Mercer, S.W. Reynolds, W.J. (2002) British Journal of General Practice. Empathy
and Quality of Care https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1316134
McCabe, C. (2004) Nurse-patient communication: an exploration of patients’
experiences. Journal of Clinical Nursing; 13, 41-49.
18
McNiff, J. Whitehead, J. (2006) All you need to know about Action Research Sage
Publications.
McNiff, J. Whitehead, J. (2011). All You Need to Know About Action Research. 2nd
Edition. London SAGE Publications Ltd
McNiff, J. (2013) Action Research principles and practice 3rd ed. Routledge
London2013
Olsen, D.P. (1991) Empathy as an ethical and philosophical basis for nursing.
Advanced Nursing Science; 14:1, 62-75.
Rogers, C. (1951) Client Centred Therapy. London: Constable.
Yu J, Kirk, M. (2008) Measurement of empathy in nursing research: systematic
review. Journal of Advanced Nursing; 64: 5, 440-454.
Secondary References
British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2011) Ethical guidelines for
educational research. Available
at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-
educational-research-2011 (Accessed: 8.11.18).
Department of Health (2010) Independent Inquiry into care provided by Mid
Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust January 2005 – March 2009 Volume I.
Francis R (2013) Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office. Accessed 10.11.18
https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=empathy%20in%20nursing .
Keogh B (2013) Review into the quality of care and treatment provided by 14
hospital trusts in England: overview report. London: NHS England. Accessed
10.12.18
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/236212/Cavendish_Review.pdf . Accessed 10.12.18
Compassion in practice : nursing, midwifery and care staff - our vision and strategy
19
Source: NHS England - 04 December 2012 - Publisher: NHS England Accessed
10.12.18
https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bps-code-ethics-and-conduct
https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html
https://www.bradford.ac.uk/wimba-files/skillschon
Leat, D. Lofthouse. R. Redi, A. BERA Research and Teacher Education. The
BERA-RSA Inquiry Teachers Views: Perspectives on Research Engagement.
Accessed via Moodle on 14.11.18
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/cip-one-year-on.pdf
https://www.bradford.ac.uk/wimba-files/skill-
space/Reflective_Writing_HTML/page_04.htm
20