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