An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research
Introduction
“If you want it done right,
you may as well do it yourself.” This
aphorism may seem appropriate if you are a picky housekeeper, but more and more
people are beginning to realize it can also apply to large corporations,
community development projects, and even national governments. Such entities exist increasingly in an
interdependent world, and are relying on Action Research as a means of coming
to grips with their constantly changing and turbulent environments.
This paper will answer the question
“What is Action Research?”, giving an overview of its processes and principles,
stating when it is appropriate to use, and situating it within a praxis
research paradigm. The evolution of the
approach will be described, including the various kinds of action research
being used today. The role of the action
researcher will be briefly mentioned, and some ethical considerations discussed. The tools of the action researcher,
particularly that of the use of search conferences, will be explained. Finally three case studies will be briefly
described, two of which pertain to action research projects involving
information technology, a promising area needing further research.
Action research is known by many other
names, including participatory research, collaborative inquiry, emancipatory
research, action learning, and contextural action research, but all are
variations on a theme. Put simply, action research is “learning by doing” - a
group of people identify a problem, do something to resolve it, see how
successful their efforts were, and if not satisfied, try again. While this is the essence of the approach,
there are other key attributes of action research that differentiate it from
common problem-solving activities that we all engage in every day. A more succinct definition is,
"Action
research...aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an
immediate problematic situation and to further the goals of social science
simultaneously. Thus, there is a dual
commitment in action research to study a system and concurrently to collaborate
with members of the system in changing it in what is together regarded as a
desirable direction. Accomplishing this
twin goal requires the active collaboration of researcher and client, and thus
it stresses the importance of co-learning as a primary aspect of the research
process."
What separates this type of research
from general professional practices, consulting, or daily problem-solving is
the emphasis on scientific study, which is to say the researcher studies the
problem systematically and ensures the intervention is informed by theoretical
considerations. Much of the researcher’s
time is spent on refining the methodological tools to suit the exigencies of
the situation, and on collecting, analyzing, and presenting data on an ongoing,
cyclical basis.
Several attributes separate action
research from other types of research.
Primary is its focus on turning the people involved into researchers,
too - people learn best, and more willingly apply what they have learned, when
they do it themselves. It also has a
social dimension - the research takes place in real-world situations, and aims
to solve real problems. Finally, the
initiating researcher, unlike in other disciplines, makes no attempt to remain
objective, but openly acknowledges their bias to the other participants.
Stephen Kemmis has developed a simple
model of the cyclical nature of the typical action research process.
Gerald Susman (1983) gives a somewhat
more elaborate listing. He distinguishes
five phases to be conducted within each research cycle. Initially, a problem is identified and data
is collected for a more detailed diagnosis.
This is followed by a collective postulation of several possible
solutions, from which a single plan of action emerges and is implemented. Data on the results of the intervention are
collected and analyzed, and the findings are interpreted in light of how
successful the action has been. At this
point, the problem is re-assessed and the process begins another cycle. This process continues until the problem is
resolved.
Principles of Action Research
What gives action research its
unique flavour is the set of principles that guide the research. Winter (1989) provides a comprehensive
overview of six key principles.
1)
Reflexive critique
An account of a situation, such as
notes, transcripts or official documents, will make implicit claims to be
authoritative, i.e., it implies that it is factual and true. Truth in a social setting, however, is
relative to the teller. The principle of
reflective critique ensures people reflect on issues and processes and make
explicit the interpretations, biases, assumptions and concerns upon which
judgments are made. In this way,
practical accounts can give rise to theoretical considerations.
2)
Dialectical critique
Reality, particularly social
reality, is consensually validated, which is to say it is shared through
language. Phenomena are conceptualized
in dialogue, therefore a dialectical critique is required to understand the set
of relationships both between the phenomenon and its context, and between the
elements constituting the phenomenon.
The key elements to focus attention on are those constituent elements
that are unstable, or in opposition to one another. These are the ones that are most likely to
create changes.
3)
Collaborative Resource
Participants in an action research
project are co-researchers. The
principle of collaborative resource presupposes that each person’s ideas are
equally significant as potential resources for creating interpretive categories
of analysis, negotiated among the participants.
It strives to avoid the skewing of credibility stemming from the prior
status of an idea-holder. It especially
makes possible the insights gleaned from noting the contradictions both between
many viewpoints and within a single viewpoint
4)
Risk
The change process potentially
threatens all previously established ways of doing things, thus creating
psychic fears among the practitioners.
One of the more prominent fears comes from the risk to ego stemming from
open discussion of one’s interpretations, ideas, and judgments. Initiators of action research will use this
principle to allay others’ fears and invite participation by pointing out that
they, too, will be subject to the same process, and that whatever the outcome,
learning will take place.
5)
Plural Structure
The nature of the research embodies
a multiplicity of views, commentaries and critiques, leading to multiple
possible actions and interpretations.
This plural structure of inquiry requires a plural text for reporting. This means that there will be many accounts
made explicit, with commentaries on their contradictions, and a range of
options for action presented. A report,
therefore, acts as a support for ongoing discussion among collaborators, rather
than a final conclusion of fact.
6)
Theory, Practice, Transformation
For action researchers, theory
informs practice, practice refines theory, in a continuous transformation. In any setting, people’s actions are based on
implicitly held assumptions, theories and hypotheses, and with every observed
result, theoretical knowledge is enhanced.
The two are intertwined aspects of a single change process. It is up to the researchers to make explicit
the theoretical justifications for the actions, and to question the bases of
those justifications. The ensuing
practical applications that follow are subjected to further analysis, in a
transformative cycle that continuously alternates emphasis between theory and
practice.
Action research is used in real
situations, rather than in contrived, experimental studies, since its primary
focus is on solving real problems. It
can, however, be used by social scientists for preliminary or pilot research,
especially when the situation is too ambiguous to frame a precise research
question. Mostly, though, in accordance
with its principles, it is chosen when circumstances require flexibility, the
involvement of the people in the research, or change must take place quickly or
holistically.
It is often the case that those who apply
this approach are practitioners who wish to improve understanding of their
practice, social change activists trying to mount an action campaign, or, more
likely, academics who have been invited into an organization (or other domain)
by decision-makers aware of a problem requiring action research, but lacking
the requisite methodological knowledge to deal with it.
Situating Action Research in a
Research Paradigm
Positivist Paradigm
The main research paradigm for the
past several centuries has been that of Logical Positivism. This paradigm is based on a number of
principles, including: a belief in an objective reality, knowledge of which is
only gained from sense data that can be directly experienced and verified
between independent observers. Phenomena
are subject to natural laws that humans discover in a logical manner through
empirical testing, using inductive and deductive hypotheses derived from a body
of scientific theory. Its methods rely heavily on quantitative measures, with
relationships among variables commonly shown by mathematical means. Positivism, used in scientific and applied
research, has been considered by many to be the antithesis of the principles of
action research (Susman and Evered 1978, Winter 1989).
Interpretive Paradigm
Over the last half century, a new
research paradigm has emerged in the social sciences to break out of the
constraints imposed by positivism. With
its emphasis on the relationship between socially-engendered concept formation
and language, it can be referred to as the Interpretive paradigm. Containing such qualitative methodological
approaches as phenomenology, ethnography, and hermeneutics, it is characterized
by a belief in a socially constructed, subjectively-based reality, one that is
influenced by culture and history.
Nonetheless it still retains the ideals of researcher objectivity, and
researcher as passive collector and expert interpreter of data.
Paradigm of Praxis
Though sharing a number of
perspectives with the interpretive paradigm, and making considerable use of its
related qualitative methodologies, there are some researchers who feel that
neither it nor the positivist paradigms are sufficient epistemological
structures under which to place action research (Lather 1986, Morley 1991). Rather, a paradigm of Praxis is seen as where
the main affinities lie. Praxis, a term
used by Aristotle, is the art of acting upon the conditions one faces in order
to change them. It deals with the
disciplines and activities predominant in the ethical and political lives of
people. Aristotle contrasted this with Theoria - those sciences and activities
that are concerned with knowing for its own sake. Both are equally needed he thought. That knowledge is derived from practice, and
practice informed by knowledge, in an ongoing process, is a cornerstone of
action research. Action researchers also
reject the notion of researcher neutrality, understanding that the most active
researcher is often one who has most at stake in resolving a problematic
situation.
Origins in late 1940s
Kurt Lewin is generally considered
the ‘father’ of action research. A
German social and experimental psychologist, and one of the founders of the
Gestalt school, he was concerned with social problems, and focused on
participative group processes for addressing conflict, crises, and change,
generally within organizations.
Initially, he was associated with the Center for Group Dynamics at MIT
in Boston, but soon went on to establish his own National Training
Laboratories.
Lewin first coined the term ‘action
research’ in his 1946 paper “Action Research and Minority Problems”,[i][v] characterizing Action Research as “a
comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social
action and research leading to social action”, using a process of “a spiral of steps, each of which is composed
of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the
action”.
Eric Trist, another major contributor
to the field from that immediate post-war era, was a social psychiatrist whose
group at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London engaged in
applied social research, initially for the civil repatriation of German
prisoners of war. He and his colleagues tended to focus more on large-scale,
multi-organizational problems.
Both Lewin and Trist applied their
research to systemic change in and between organizations. They emphasized direct professional - client
collaboration and affirmed the role of group relations as basis for
problem-solving. Both were avid
proponents of the principle that decisions are best implemented by those who
help make them.
By the mid-1970s, the field had
evolved, revealing 4 main ‘streams’ that had emerged: traditional, contextural
(action learning), radical, and educational action research.
Traditional Action Research stemmed
from Lewin’s work within organizations and encompasses the concepts and
practices of Field Theory, Group Dynamics, T-Groups, and the Clinical
Model. The growing importance of
labour-management relations led to the application of action research in the
areas of Organization Development, Quality of Working Life (QWL), Socio-technical
systems (e.g., Information Systems), and Organizational Democracy. This traditional approach tends toward the
conservative, generally maintaining the status quo with regards to
organizational power structures.
Contextural Action Research, also
sometimes referred to as Action Learning, is an approach derived from Trist’s
work on relations between organizations.
It is contextural, insofar as it entails reconstituting the structural
relations among actors in a social environment; domain-based, in that it tries
to involve all affected parties and stakeholders; holographic, as each
participant understands the working of the whole; and it stresses that
participants act as project designers and co-researchers. The concept of organizational ecology, and
the use of search conferences come out of contextural action research, which is
more of a liberal philosophy, with social transformation occurring by consensus
and normative incrementalism.
The Radical stream, which has its roots
in Marxian ‘dialectical materialism’ and the praxis orientations of Antonio
Gramsci, has a strong focus on emancipation and the overcoming of power
imbalances. Participatory Action
Research, often found in liberationist movements and international development
circles, and Feminist Action Research both strive for social transformation via
an advocacy process to strengthen peripheral groups in society.
A fourth stream, that of Educational
Action Research, has its foundations in the writings of John Dewey, the great
American educational philosopher of the 1920s and 30s, who believed that
professional educators should become involved in community
problem-solving. Its practitioners, not
surprisingly, operate mainly out of educational institutions, and focus on
development of curriculum, professional development, and applying learning in a
social context. It is often the case
that university-based action researchers work with primary and secondary school
teachers and students on community projects.
Action Research is more of a holistic
approach to problem-solving, rather than a single method for collecting and
analyzing data. Thus, it allows for
several different research tools to be used as the project is conducted. These various methods, which are generally
common to the qualitative research paradigm, include: keeping a research
journal, document collection and analysis, participant observation recordings,
questionnaire surveys, structured and unstructured interviews, and case
studies.
Of all of the tools utilized by action
researchers, the one that has been developed exclusively to suit the needs of
the action research approach is that of the search conference, initially
developed by Eric Trist and Fred Emery at the Tavistock Institute in 1959, and
first implemented for the merger of Bristol-Siddley Aircraft Engines in
1960.
The search conference format has seen
widespread development since that time, with variations on Trist and Emery’s
theme becoming known under other names due to their promotion by individual
academics and consultants. These include
Dannemiller-Tyson’s Interactive
Strategic Planning, Marvin Weisbord's Future Search Conference, Dick Axelrod's
Conference Model Redesign, Harrison Owen’s Open Space, and ICA’s Strategic
Planning (Rouda
1995).
Search conferences also have been
conducted for many different circumstances and participants, including:
decision-makers from several countries visioning the “Future of Participative
Democracy in the Americas”;[ii][vi] practitioners and policymakers in the
field of health promotion in Ontario taking charge in an era of cutbacks;[iii][vii] and Xerox employees sorting out
enterprise re-organization.[iv][viii]
Eric
Trist sums up the process quite nicely -
"Searching...is carried out in
groups which are composed of the relevant stakeholders. The group meets under social island
conditions for 2-3 days, sometimes as long as five. The opening sessions are concerned with
elucidating the factors operating in the wider contextual environment - those
producing the meta-problems and likely to affect the future. The content is contributed entirely by the
members. The staff are facilitators
only. Items are listed in the first
instance without criticism in the plenary session and displayed on flip charts
which surround the room. The material is
discussed in greater depth in small groups and the composite picture checked
out in plenary. The group next examines
its own organizational setting or settings against this wider background and
then proceeds to construct a picture of a desirable future. It is surprising how much agreement there
often is. Only when all this has been
done is consideration given to action steps..."
Role of the Action Researcher
Upon invitation into a domain, the
outside researcher’s role is to implement the Action Research method in such a
manner as to produce a mutually agreeable outcome for all participants, with
the process being maintained by them afterwards. To accomplish this, it may necessitate the
adoption of many different roles at various stages of the process, including
those of
planner leader
catalyzer facilitator
teacher designer
listener observer
synthesizer reporter
The main role, however, is to nurture
local leaders to the point where they can take responsibility for the
process. This point is reached they
understand the methods and are able to carry on when the initiating researcher
leaves.
In many Action Research situations,
the hired researcher’s role is primarily to take the time to facilitate
dialogue and foster reflective analysis among the participants, provide them
with periodic reports, and write a final report when the researcher’s
involvement has ended.
Because action research is carried
out in real-world circumstances, and involves close and open communication
among the people involved, the researchers must pay close attention to ethical
considerations in the conduct of their work. Richard Winter (1996) lists a
number of principles:
“Make
sure that the relevant persons, committees and authorities have been consulted,
and that the principles guiding the work are accepted in advance by all.
All
participants must be allowed to influence the work, and the wishes of those who
do not wish to participate must be respected.
The
development of the work must remain visible and open to suggestions from
others.
Permission
must be obtained before making observations or examining documents produced for
other purposes.
Descriptions
of others’ work and points of view must be negotiated with those concerned
before being published.
The
researcher must accept responsibility for maintaining confidentiality.”
To
this might be added several more points:
Decisions made about the direction of the research and the probable outcomes
are collective
Researchers are explicit about the nature of the research process from the
beginning, including all personal biases and interests
There is equal access to information generated by the process for all
participants
The outside researcher and the initial design team must create a process that
maximizes the opportunities for involvement of all participants.
To better illustrate how action research
can proceed, three case studies are presented.
Action research projects are generally situationally unique, but there
are elements in the methods that can be used by other researchers in different
circumstances. The first case study, an
account taken from the writings of one of the researchers involved (Franklin
1994), involves a research project to stimulate the development of nature
tourism services in the Caribbean. It
represents a fairly typical example of an action research initiative. The second and third case studies centre
around the use of computer communications, and therefore illustrate a departure
from the norm in this regard. They are
presented following a brief overview of this potentially promising technical
innovation.
In 1991, an action research process
was initiated to explore how nature tourism could be instituted on each of the
four Windward Islands in the Caribbean - St. Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, and St.
Vincent. The government took the lead,
for environmental conservation, community-based development, and national
economic development purposes. Realizing
that the consultation process had to involve many stakeholders, including
representatives of several government ministries, environmental and heritage
groups, community organizations, women’s and youth groups, farmers’
cooperatives, and private business, an action research approach was seen as
appropriate.
Two action researchers from York
University in Toronto, with prior experience in the region, were hired to
implement the project, with a majority of the funding coming from the Canadian
International Development Agency. Multi-stakeholder
national advisory councils were formed, and national project coordinators
selected as local project liaisons.
Their first main task was to organize a search conference on each
island.
The search conferences took place,
the outcome of which was a set of recommendations and/or action plans for the
carrying out of a number of nature tourism-oriented sub-projects at the local
community level. At this point, extended
advisory groups were formed on several of the islands, and national awareness
activities and community sub-projects were implemented in some cases.
To maintain the process, regional
project meetings were held, where project coordinators and key advisory members
shared experiences, conducted self-evaluations and developed plans for
maintaining the process (e.g., fundraising).
One of the more valuable tools for building a sense of community was the
use of a videocamera to create a documentary video of a local project.
The outcomes varied. In St. Vincent
the research project was highly successful, with several viable local
developments instituted. Grenada and St.
Lucia showed mixed outcomes, and Dominica was the least successful, the process
curtailed by the government soon after the search conference took place. The main difference in the outcomes, it was felt,
was in the willingness of the key government personnel to “let go” and allow
the process to be jointly controlled by all participants. There is always a risk that this kind of
research will empower stakeholders, and change existing power relations, the
threat of which is too much for some decision-makers, but if given the
opportunity, there are many things that a collaborative group of citizens can
accomplish that might not be possible otherwise.
In the past ten years or so, there
has been a marked increase in the number of organizations that are making use
of information technology and computer mediated communications. This has led to a number of convergences
between information systems and action research. In some cases, it has been a matter of
managers of corporate networks employing action research techniques to
facilitate large-scale changes to their information systems. In others, it has been a question of
community-based action research projects making use of computer communications
to broaden participation.
Much of the action research carried
out over the past 40 years has been conducted in local settings with the
participants meeting face-to-face with “real-time” dialogue. The emergence of the Internet has led to an
explosion of asynchronous and aspatial group communication in the form
of e-mail and computer conferences, and recently, v-mail and video
conferencing. While there have been
numerous attempts to use this new technology in assisting group learning, both
within organizations and among groups in the community [this author has been
involved with a dozen or more projects of this kind in the nonprofit sector in
Canada alone], there is a dearth of published studies on the use of action research
methods in such projects Lau and Hayward (1997), in a recent review of the
literature, found that most research on group support systems to date has been
in short-term, experimental situations using quantitative methods.. There are a few examples, though, of
longitudinal studies in naturalistic settings using qualitative methods; of
those that did use action research, none studied the use and effects of
communication systems in groups and organizations.
We can now to turn to the case
studies, both of which are situated in an area in need of more research - that
of the use of information technology as a potentially powerful adjunct to
action research processes.
Lau and Hayward (1997) used an action
research approach in a study of their own to explore the structuration of
Internet-based collaborative work groups.
Over a two-year period, the researchers participated as facilitators in
three action research cycles of problem-solving among approximately 15
instructors and project staff, and 25 health professionals from various regions
striving to make a transition to a more community-based health program. The aim was to explore how Internet-based
communications would influence their evolution into a virtual collaborative
workgroup.
The first phase was taken up with
defining expectations, providing the technology and developing the customized
workgroup system. Feedback from
participants noted that shorter and more spaced training sessions, with
instructions more focused on specific projects would have been more
helpful. The next phase saw the full
deployment of the system, and the main lesson learned was that the steepness of
the learning curve was severely underestimated, with frustrations only
minimally satisfied by a great deal of technical support provided by
telephone. The final cycle saw the
stabilization of the system and the emergence of the virtual groups
The researchers found that those who
used the system interactively were more likely to establish projects that were
collaborative in nature, and that the lack of high quality information on
community healthcare online was a drawback.
The participants reported learning a great deal from the initiative.
The interpretations of the study
suggest that role clarity, relationship building, information sharing, resource
support, and experiential learning are important aspects in virtual group
development. There was also a sense that
more research was needed on how group support systems can help groups interact
with their external environment, as well as on how to enhance the process of
learning by group members.
Comstock and Fox (1995) have written
about their experiences in integrating computer conferencing into a learning
community for mid-career working adults attending a Graduate Management Program
at Antioch University in Seattle. From
1992 to 1995, the researchers and their students made use of a dial-up computer
conferencing system called Caucus to augment learning outside of monthly
classroom weekends. Their findings
relate to establishing boundaries to interaction, creating a caring community,
and building collaborative learning.
Boundary setting was a matter of both
defined membership, i.e., access to particular conferences, and actual
participation. The architecture of the
online environment was equated to that of a house, in which locked rooms
allowed for privacy, but hampered interaction.
They suggest some software design changes that would provide more cues
and flexibility to improve access and usage.
Relationships in a caring community
were fostered by caring talk, personal conversations and story telling. Over time, expressions of personal concern
for other participants increased, exemplifying a more tightly-knit group. Playful conversations of a personal nature
also improved group relations, as did stories of events in individuals’ lives. These processes provided the support and induced
the trust needed to sustain the more in-depth collaborative learning taking
place.
Students were expected to use the
system for collaborative learning using three forms of conversation - dialogue,
discussion and critical reflection.
Dialogues were enjoined as a result of attempts to relate classroom
lessons to personal situations at work, with a better understanding provided by
multiple opinions. Discussions,
distinguished by the goal of making a group decision or taking an action,
required a fair degree of moderation, insofar as participants found it
difficult to reach closure. The process
of reflecting critically on ideas was also difficult - participants rarely took
the time to analyze postings, preferring a more immediate, and more
superficial, conversational style.
The authors conclude with four
recommendations: 1) be clear about the purpose of the computer conference and
expectations for use; 2) develop incentives for widespread and continuous
participation; 3) pay attention to affects of the software on the way the
system is used for learning; and 4) teach members of the community how to
translate face-to-face collaborative processes to the on-line environment.
The characteristics of the new
information technologies, especially that of computer conferencing, which
allows group communications to take place outside of the bounds of time and
space, have the potential to be well suited to action research. Projects that traditionally have been limited
to local, real-time interactions, such as in the case of search conferences,
now have the possibility of being conducted online, with the promise of
larger-sized groups, more reflexivity, greater geographic reach, and for a
longer period of sustained interaction.
The current state of the software architecture, though, does not seem to
be sufficient to induce the focused collaboration required. Perhaps this will remain the case until
cyberspace becomes as elaborate in contextual cues as our current socio-physical
environment. Whatever the eventual
outcome of online developments, it is certain that action research and
information technologies will continue to converge, and we must be prepared to
use action research techniques to better understand and utilize this
convergence.
This
paper has presented an overview of action research as a methodological approach
to solving social problems. The
principles and procedures of this type of research, and epistemological
underpinnings, were described, along with the evolution of the practice. Details of a search conference and other
tools were given, as was an indication of the roles and ethics involved in the
research. The case studies gave concrete
examples of projects, particularly in the relatively new area of social
deployment of information technologies.
Further action research is needed to explore the potential for
developing computer-mediated communications in a way that will enhance human
interactions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment