Action research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the British charity formerly named Action Research, see Action Medical Research. For the academic journal titled Action Research, see Action Research (journal).

Action research is either research initiated to solve an immediate problem or a reflective process of progressive problem solving led by individuals working with others in teams or as part of a "community of practice" to improve the way they address issues and solve problems. There are two types of action research: participatory action research and practical action research. Denscombe (2010, p. 6) writes that an action research strategy's purpose is to solve a particular problem and to produce guidelines for best practice.

Action research involves actively participating in a change situation, often via an existing organization, whilst simultaneously conducting research. Action research can also be undertaken by larger organizations or institutions, assisted or guided by professional researchers, with the aim of improving their strategies, practices and knowledge of the environments within which they practice. As designers and stakeholders, researchers work with others to propose a new course of action to help their community improve its work practices.

Kurt Lewin, then a professor at MIT, first coined the term “action research” in 1944. In his 1946 paper “Action Research and Minority Problems” he described action research as “a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action” that uses “a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action”.

Overview[edit]

Action research is an interactive inquiry process that balances problem solving actions implemented in a collaborative context with data-driven collaborative analysis or research to understand underlying causes enabling future predictions about personal and organizational change (Reason & Bradbury, 2002)[citation needed]. After six decades of action research development, many methods have evolved that adjust the balance to focus more on the actions taken or more on the research that results from the reflective understanding of the actions. This tension exists between

  1. those who are more driven by the researcher’s agenda and those more driven by participants;
  2. those who are motivated primarily by instrumental goal attainment and those motivated primarily by the aim of personal, organizational or societal transformation; and
  3. 1st-, to 2nd-, to 3rd-person research, that is, my research on my own action, aimed primarily at personal change; our research on our group (family/team), aimed primarily at improving the group; and ‘scholarly’ research aimed primarily at theoretical generalization or large scale change.

Action research challenges traditional social science by moving beyond reflective knowledge created by outside experts sampling variables, to an active moment-to-moment theorizing, data collecting and inquiry occurring in the midst of emergent structure. “Knowledge is always gained through action and for action. From this starting point, to question the validity of social knowledge is to question, not how to develop a reflective science about action, but how to develop genuinely well-informed action — how to conduct an action science” (Torbert 2002)[citation needed]. In this sense, performing action research is the same as performing an experiment, thus it is an empirical process.

Major theories[edit]

Chris Argyris' Action Science[edit]

Main article: Action Science

Chris Argyris' Action Science begins with the study of how human beings design their actions in difficult situations. Humans design their actions to achieve intended consequences and are governed by a set of environment variables. How those governing variables are treated in designing actions are the key differences between single loop learning and double loop learning. When actions are designed to achieve the intended consequences and to suppress conflict about the governing variables, a single loop learning cycle usually ensues.

On the other hand, when actions are taken, not only to achieve the intended consequences, but also to openly inquire about conflict and to possibly transform the governing variables, both single loop and double loop learning cycles usually ensue. (Argyris applies single loop and double loop learning concepts not only to personal behaviors but also to organizational behaviors in his models.) This is different from experimental research in which environmental variables are controlled and researchers try to find out cause and effect in an isolated environment.

John Heron and Peter Reason's Cooperative Inquiry[edit]

Main article: Cooperative Inquiry

Cooperative inquiry, also known as collaborative inquiry was first proposed by John Heron in 1971 and later expanded with Peter Reason and Demi Brown. The major idea of cooperative inquiry is to “research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people.” It emphasizes that all active participants are fully involved in research decisions as co-researchers.

Cooperative inquiry creates a research cycle among four different types of knowledge: propositional knowing (as in contemporary science), practical knowing (the knowledge that comes with actually doing what you propose), experiential knowing (the feedback we get in real time about our interaction with the larger world) and presentational knowing (the artistic rehearsal process through which we craft new practices). The research process includes these four stages at each cycle with deepening experience and knowledge of the initial proposition, or of new propositions, at every cycle.

Paulo Freire's Participatory Action Research (PAR)[edit]

Participatory action research has emerged in recent years as a significant methodology for intervention, development and change within communities and groups. It is now promoted and implemented by many international development agencies and university programs, as well as countless local community organizations around the world.[citation needed][dubious ] PAR builds on the critical pedagogy put forward by Paulo Freire as a response to the traditional formal models of education where the “teacher” stands at the front and “imparts” information to the “students” who are passive recipients. This was further developed in "adult education" models throughout Latin America.

Orlando Fals-Borda (1925–2008), Colombian sociologist and political activist, was one of principal promoters of "participatory action research" (IAP in Spanish) in Latin America. Published "double history of the coast", book that compare the official "history" and the non official "story" of the north coast of Colombia.

William Torbert’s Developmental Action Inquiry[edit]

The Developmental Action Inquiry is a “way of simultaneously conducting action and inquiry as a disciplined leadership practice that increases the wider effectiveness of our actions.[citation needed] Such action helps individuals, teams, organizations become more capable of self-transformation and thus more creative, more aware, more just and more sustainable” (Torbert, 2004).

Action Inquiry challenges our attention to span four different territories of experience (at the personal, group or organizational scales) in the midst of actions.[citation needed] This practice promotes timeliness – learning with moment to moment intentional awareness – among individuals and with regard to the outside world of nature and human institutions.[citation needed] It studies the “pre-constituted internalized and externalized universe in the present, both as it resonates with and departs from the past and as it resonates with and potentiates the future” (Torbert, 2001).

William Barry's Living Educational Theory Approach to Action Research[edit]

Dr. William Barry (Atkins and Wallace 2012), defined an approach to action research which focuses on creating ontological weight.[1] He adapted the idea of ontological weight to action research from existential Christian philosopher Gabriel Marcel(1963). Professor Barry (Barry, 2012) was influenced by Jean McNiff's and Jack Whitehead's (2008) phraseology of living theory action research but was diametrically opposed to the validation process advocated by Whitehead which demanded video "evidence" of "energy flowing values" and Whitehead's atheistic ontological position which influenced his conception of values in action research.

Professor Barry explained that Living educational theory (LET) "{It is}a critical and transformational approach to action research. It confronts the researcher to challenge the status quo of their educational practice and to answer the question, 'How can I improve that I'm doing?' Researchers who use this approach must be willing to recognize and assume responsibility for being a 'living contradictions' in their professional practice – thinking one way and acting in another. The mission of the LET action researcher is to overcome workplace norms and self- behavior which contradict the researcher's values and beliefs. The vision of the LET researcher is to make an original contribution to knowledge through generating an educational theory proven to improve the learning of people within a social learning space. The standard of judgment for theory validity is evidence of workplace reform, transformational growth of the researcher, and improved learning by the people researcher claimed to have influenced..." (Atkins and Wallace, p. 131).

Action research in organization development[edit]

Wendell L. French and Cecil Bell define organization development (OD) at one point as "organization improvement through action research".[2] If one idea can be said to summarize OD's underlying philosophy, it would be action research as it was conceptualized by Kurt Lewin and later elaborated and expanded on by other behavioral scientists. Concerned with social change and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, Lewin believed that the motivation to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. "Rational social management", he said, "proceeds in a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of action".[3]

  • Unfreezing : Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware of a need to change.
  • Changing : The situation is diagnosed and new models of behavior are explored and tested.
  • Refreezing: Application of new behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted.
Figure 1: Systems Model of Action-Research Process

Lewin's description of the process of change involves three steps:[3]

Figure 1 summarizes the steps and processes involved in planned change through action research. Action research is depicted as a cyclical process of change.

  1. The cycle begins with a series of planning actions initiated by the client and the change agent working together. The principal elements of this stage include a preliminary diagnosis, data gathering, feedback of results, and joint action planning. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in which the client system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need outside help to effect changes, and shares with the consultant the process of problem diagnosis.
  2. The second stage of action research is the action, or transformation, phase. This stage includes actions relating to learning processes (perhaps in the form of role analysis) and to planning and executing behavioral changes in the client organization. As shown in Figure 1, feedback at this stage would move via Feedback Loop A and would have the effect of altering previous planning to bring the learning activities of the client system into better alignment with change objectives. Included in this stage is action-planning activity carried out jointly by the consultant and members of the client system. Following the workshop or learning sessions, these action steps are carried out on the job as part of the transformation stage.[4]
  3. The third stage of action research is the output or results phase. This stage includes actual changes in behavior (if any) resulting from corrective action steps taken following the second stage. Data are again gathered from the client system so that progress can be determined and necessary adjustments in learning activities can be made. Minor adjustments of this nature can be made in learning activities via Feedback Loop B (see Figure 1).

Major adjustments and reevaluations would return the OD project to the first or planning stage for basic changes in the program. The action-research model shown in Figure 1 closely follows Lewin's repetitive cycle of planning, action, and measuring results. It also illustrates other aspects of Lewin's general model of change. As indicated in the diagram, the planning stage is a period of unfreezing, or problem awareness.[3] The action stage is a period of changing, that is, trying out new forms of behavior in an effort to understand and cope with the system's problems. (There is inevitable overlap between the stages, since the boundaries are not clear-cut and cannot be in a continuous process).

The results stage is a period of refreezing, in which new behaviors are tried out on the job and, if successful and reinforcing, become a part of the system's repertoire of problem-solving behavior. Action research is problem centered, client centered, and action oriented. It involves the client system in a diagnostic, active-learning, problem-finding and problem-solving process.

Epistemological underpinning of Action Research[edit]

Epistemology is a combination of methodology and philosophy and considers knowledge as such, its contraction, structure, functioning and development. Moreover, epistemology is mainly focused its philosophy on “subject-object” rather than on “object-knowledge”. Such philosophy creates a strong background for Action Research with its areas of activity. However AR while using theory of epistemology may put questions as: How does the knowledge? What are the mechanisms for its implementation in the objectification and scientific theory and practice? What are the types of knowledge? What are the general laws of the "life" of change and development of knowledge? Epistemology traditionally identified with the theory of knowledge, which commonly used in the Action Research Gritsanov A., 1999.

Starting from the idea where AR is mainly focused in a specific context in which theory cannot be separated form action. However, practical use of this mix is implied in real-life situations. Thus, this focus on the real-world with its historicity, dynamism and complexity Gritsanov A., 1999. In this case, AR created distance for itself from the world of social research with its friction-free and perfect informational background.

Summarizing the epistemological foundation of AR

AR is context bound and addresses real-life problems holistically. AR is inquiry through which participants and researchers cogeneration knowledge using collaborative communication processes in which all participants contributions are taken seriously. AR treats the diversity of experiences and capacities within the local group as an opportunity for the enrichment of the research-action process. The meanings constructed in the inquiry process lead to social action, or these reflections on action lead to the construction of new meanings. The credibility-validity of AR knowledge is measured according to whether actions, that arise from it, solve problems (workability) and increase participants control over their own situations [[Greenwood D.[5] & Levin M., 2007]]. Nevertheless, this key points can be connected to the problem or issues in real life, which should be examined, with future solutions. Moreover, we can create a suitable inquiry with knowledge, which can solve the problem in particular. Unfortunately, inquiry should also be based on experience by developing relations and information. It is also should be stated that dominant amount of real-life situations should involves a priori and posteriori meaning construction.

Real-life situations mostly involved social organizations with their structure and economic development. Thus, in same case, AR must be tangible in the sense that social groups should introduce the solution to the problem by themselves. Therefore AR has been introduced only as judge to the presented solution and idea. In addition, AR may examine the solution to its workability, if it can be implied practically or not to this point [[Greenwood D.[5] & Levin M., 2007]].

Accordingly, social group (participants) must be able to use their knowledge due to emerged goals or situation. The democratic element in the inquiry process indicates that mutualism between outside researchers and inside participants must exist. AR is link between both sides, where knowledge is implied through the inquiry process. Moreover, there are subjects under investigation such as local knowledge, historical consciousness, everyday experience of the insiders complements the outsider`s skills in facilitating learning processes, technical skills in research procedures and comparative and historical knowledge. However, logic of inquiry may be linked to its process in the aim to make indeterminate situation into more positively controlled [[Greenwood D.[5] & Levin M., 2007]]. Thus, some of outside researchers may be involved into the process as inside participants.

Referring to Skjervheim`s view about AR, there is no doubt that nowadays researches became participates in the inquiry. The acceptance and the active and conscious use of this position contrast Action Research with conventional social science that purposely obfuscates the researcher`s social role. However, the active researcher`s involvement raises important issues and obstacles which cannot be noticed by participants [[Susman G.I. and Evered R.D.,[6] 1978]]. That is why background for AR is a critical reflection by researches that are involved inside.

Researchers can create the opportunity in which individuals are able to use their capacities. In this case, researchers may use creativity in developing potential solutions or explanations depending on the issue. Therefore, knowledge and experience can be an argument, which bring to the research process, additional solutions or development [[Greenwood D.[5] & Levin M., 2007]].

The last but not the least, is an argument where ethic issues is important to sustain diversity as a political right in itself. That is why AR must be neutral in constructing decisions and options for participants. Consequently, AR is an obstacle, which can only observe and not to force though the decision-making process. It must be constructed to gain strength from the creative potential in a diversity of the participant group. It should not create solutions to problems; those problems that might unnecessarily cut the diversity.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://issuu.com/ijosc.net/docs/international_journal_of_science__second_issue
  2. ^ Wendell L French; Cecil Bell (1973). Organization development: behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-13-641662-3. OCLC 314258. 
  3. ^ a b c Kurt Lewin (1958). Group Decision and Social Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. p. 201. 
  4. ^ Richard Arvid Johnson (1976). Management, systems, and society : an introduction. Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Pub. Co. pp. 222–224. ISBN 978-0-87620-540-2. OCLC 2299496. 
  5. ^ a b c d Greenwood D
  6. ^ Susman G.I. and Evered R.D.

Bibliography[edit]

    • Atkins, L & Wallace, S. (2012). Qualitative Research in Education. London: Sage Publications, LTD.
    • Barry, W. (2012).[ "http://issuu.com/ijosc.net/docs/international_journal_of_science__second_issue]."Is Modern American Education Promoting a Sane Society?: International Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 69-81.
    • BARRY, W.J., (2012b). How can I improve my life-affirming, need-fulfilling, and performance enhancing capacity to understand and model the meaning of educational quality? PhD. Nottingham Trent University (published thesis).
    • Center for Collaborative Action Research Contains examples of peer-reviewed action research reports and a wiki for supporting those engaged in the process of writing or supporting action research.
    • James, E. Alana; Milenkiewicz, Margaret T.; Bucknam, Alan. Participatory Action Research for Educational Leadership: Using Data-Driven Decision Making to Improve Schools. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2007. ISBN 978-1-4129-3777-1
    • Burns, D. 2007. Systemic Action Research: A strategy for whole system change. Bristol: Policy Press.
    • Davison, R., Martinsons, M., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 65-86.
    • Noffke, S. & Somekh, B. (Ed.) (2009) The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research. London: SAGE. ISBN 978-1-4129-4708-4.
    • Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M., Introduction to action research: social research for social change, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1998.
    • Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M., Introduction to action research. Second adition, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications,2007.
    • Reason, P. & Bradbury, H., (Ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Action Research. Participative Inquiry and Practice. 1st Edition. London: Sage, 2001. ISBN 0-7619-6645-5.
    • Reason & Bradbury, Handbook of Action Research, 2nd Edition. London: Sage, 2007. ISBN 978-1-4129-2029-2.
    • Sherman & Torbert, Transforming Social Inquiry, Transforming Social Action: New paradigms for crossing the theory/practice divide in universities and communities. Boston, Kluwer, 2000.
    • Silverman, Robert Mark, Henry L. Taylor, Jr. and Christopher G. Crawford. 2008. “The Role of Citizen Participation and Action Research Principles in Main Street Revitalization: An Analysis of a Local Planning Project,” Action Research 6(1): 69-93.
    • Stringer, E.T. (1999). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    • Woodman & Pasmore, Research in Organizational Change & Development series. Greenwich CT: Jai Press
    • Addison-Wesley Series in Organization Development
    • Pine, Gerald J. (2008). Teacher Action Research: Building Knowledge Democracies, Sage Publications.
  • Scholarly Journals
  • Philosophical sources of action research
    • Abram, D. 1996. The Spell of the Sensuous. New York: Vintage.
    • Argyris, C. Putnam, R. & Smith, D. 1985. Action Science: Concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • Gadamer, H. 1982. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad.
    • Habermas, J. 1984/1987. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol.s I & II. Boston:Beacon.
    • Hallward, P. 2003. Badiou: A subject to truth. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    • Lewin, K. (1946) Action research and minority problems. J Soc. Issues 2(4): 34-46.
    • Lewin, G.W. (Ed.) (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York, NY: Harper & Row. (Collection of articles by Kurt Lewin)
    • Malin, S. 2001. Nature Loves to Hide: Quantum physics and the nature of reality, a Western perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • McNiff, J. (2013) Action Research: Principles and practice. New York: Routledge.
    • Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge. New York: Harper.
    • Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday Currency.
    • Torbert, W. 1991. The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society, and Scientific Inquiry
    • Varela, F., Thompson, E. & Rosch E. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    • Whitehead, J. & McNiff, J. (2006) Action Research Living Theory, London; Sage. ISBN 978-1-4129-0855-9.
    • Wilber, K. 1998. The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating science and religion. New York: Random House
  • Exemplars and methodological discussions of action research
    • Argyris, C. 1970. Intervention Theory and Method. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
    • Argyris, C. 1980. Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research. San Diego CA: Academic Press.
    • Argyris, C. 1994. Knowledge for Action. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
    • Denscombe M. 2010. Good Research Guide : For small-scale social research projects (4th Edition). Open University Press. Berkshire, GBR. ISBN 978-0-3352-4138-5
    • Cameron, K. & Quinn, R. 1999. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
    • Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
    • Garreau, J. 2005. Radical Evolution: The promise and peril of enhancing our minds, our bodies – and what it means to be human. New York: Doubleday.
    • Heikkinen, H., Kakkori, L. & Huttunen, R. 2001. This is my truth, tell me yours: some aspects of action research quality in the light of truth theories. Educational Action Research 1/2001. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a739035953
    • Heron, J. 1996. Cooperative Inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage.
    • McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2006) All You Need To Know About Action Research, London; Sage.
    • Marcel, G. (1963) Existential Background of Human Dignity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    • Ogilvy, J. 2000. Creating Better Futures: Scenario planning as a tool for a better tomorrow. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
    • Reason, P. & Rowan, J. 1981. Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research. London: Wiley.
    • Reason, P. 1995. Participation in Human Inquiry. London: Sage.
    • Susman G.I. and Evered R.D., 1978. Administrative Science Quarterly, An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 582–603 Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell Universit http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392581
    • Schein, E. 1999. Process Consultation Revisited. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
    • Senge, P., Scharmer, C., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. 2004. Presence: Human purpose and the field of the future. Cambridge MA: Society for Organizational Learning.
    • Torbert, W. & Associates 2004. Action Inquiry: The Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership.
  • 1st-Person Research/Practice Exemplars
    • Bateson, M. 1984. With a Daughter’s Eye: A Memoir of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. New York: Plume/Penguin.
    • Raine, N. 1998. After Silence: Rape and My Journey Back. New York: Crown.
    • Harrison, R. 1995. Consultant's Journey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
    • Todhunter, C. 2001. Undertaking Action Research: Negotiating the Road Ahead, Social Research Update, Issue 34, Autumn.

External links[edit]