Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Action Research
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Action Research
Action research has at its basis socially transformative goals. The field is sometimes seen as a propagator of an “alternative globalization” that seeks to disrupt the status quo of colonial domination and hegemonic globalization in order to create mutual respect and understanding that cross economic, geographic, political, cultural, and epistemological divides with hopes of creating a healthy and sustainable world economy (Rowell, Bruce, Shosh, & Riel, 2017). The hopes held by those in the field in terms of social justice are that sustainability can be applied not only to environmental and economic factors, but also to the continuation of preexisting and often threatened cultural aspects as well.
Practicality and real-world application are a clear focus in action research. The gains in knowledge are intended to be liberating and empowering, by both “studying reality in order to transform it” while “transform[ing] reality in order to study it” (Rowell et al., 2017). The transformation is central, through a broad analysis of real-world problems.
Transformation, both individually and collectively, depends on confronting practices that are not working because they are:
a. irrational because the way participants understand the conduct and consequences of their practices are unreasonable,
incomprehensible, incoherent, or contradictory, or more generally because the practice unreasonably limits the individual and collective self-expression of the people involved and affected by the practice,
b. unsustainable because the way the participants conduct their practices are ineffective, unproductive, or non-renewable either immediately or in the long term, or more generally because the practice unreasonably limits the individual and collective self-
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
c. unjust because the way participants relate to one another in the practice, and to others affected by their practice, serves the interests of some at the expense of others, or causes unreasonable conflict or suffering among them, or more generally because the practice unreasonably limits the individual and collective self-determination of those involved and affected (Kemmis, Heikkinen, Fransson, Aspfors, and Edwards-Groves, 2014, p. 5) (in
McTaggart, Nixon, & Kemmis, 2017)
The kind of real-world problems where action research can be found are many, ranging a myriad of research/practical environments from policy, tourism (Bennett, Lemelin, Koster, & Budke, 2012), education (Robertson, 2000) and educational reform (Somekh &
Zeichner, 2009), community and mental health (Cargo & Mercer, 2008; Maiter, Simich, Jacobson, & Wise, 2008), organizational management (Moss, Alho, & Alexander, 2007), agriculture, disaster mediation and post disaster relief (Ozerdem & Bowd 2010), post conflict reconstruction, and environmental conservation through traditional knowledge (Popova, 2014) among others.
Action research includes various branches, including participatory action research, critical participatory action research, living theories, action learning, emancipatory action research, informal action research, and collaborative action research (Rowell et al., 2017), as well as community based research, educational action research, and others. In all these branches public or stakeholder involvement is underpinned by normative, substantive, and instrumental benefits enriching social and individual learning, encouraging multiple perspectives to improve understanding of complex issues and the selecting of appropriate solutions, and having collaborative relationships that assist in project implementation and defusing conflict (Blackstock, Kelly, & Horsey, 2007). Accessing these benefits through requires a development of understanding multifaceted perspectives though a reciprocal exchange of information.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
A characteristic value of action research is that the direction of inquiry is a participative, democratic process. Research directions are determined through input of both researchers and participants. Traditional research is often target based, delegated by researchers from their positions of power. For action research, a participatory worldview approaches people not as objects of research, but instead as valued sources of knowledge. The action researcher places a high level of importance on the input provided by participants or practitioners through input into the analysis, design, implementation, and decision-making processes of the research project (Harrison & Callan, 2013). Through interaction between the researchers and participants, synergy can occur, though for these effects to be realized an experienced researcher who recognizes an existing problem and can navigate the interpersonal relationships in a way so as to gain insight, understanding, and create positive change. Two-way communication at all stages is critical to create
mutually a mutual understanding of project aims and philosophies (Dyer, J., Stringer, L.C., Dougill, 2014).
Participants in action research are involved in the analysis, design, implementation processes, and decision making processes along with the researcher in order to create a kind of “synergy” between the researchers and so called researched, as well as between the normative, substantive, and instrumental benefits of the research itself. Somewhat more informal and interpretive, the methodology encourages a cyclical process of
reflection, development, and action. This cycle is meant to continue with the inclusion of the participants (or the ‘researched’) being involved in moving through the cycle and giving their input in an open environment where their ideas are on equal footing.
Action research needs to be a flexible and cyclical process. The purpose and/or direction may change during development or implementation as the researcher and practitioner both increase their awareness through a flow of continual feedback. Because this kind of
‧
even research questions are likely to arise during the process. A challenge for this method comes from keeping interests of both parties aligned during the process, which requires open and ongoing discussions between the two parties. The discussion, reflection, and modification, allow for the development of interim conclusions and charting out courses of action for the next cycle iteration. Put another way, this requires reciprocity,
reflexivity, and reflection-on-reality (Robertson, 2000).
As action research is designed to approach a particular situation, policy, or scenario, in order to address a perceived shortcoming or create an as-yet unattained benefit, it stands to reason that those involved would be interested in addressing an unsatisfactory
situation. The work of the researcher thus has real-world consequences for current problems and situations, and while both the researcher and the participant are looking to create positive effects, consideration should be given to any possible negative effects that may occur if the process is not a truly open or equal one (Nadasdy, 2003).2 Considering that much action research seeks to create long-term benefits and relationships, the
knowledge of process that can be gained from such programs may be just as important as gains in theory or even outcome.
Together with action and participatory research should come social learning. Social learning accruing and spreading over time can in turn lead to both transformations at personal and institutional levels. While individual changes may occur in the short time – these could be as simple as “changing one’s mind” – change and transformations that appear at higher community or institutional levels following a developmental program can take a good deal of time to become evident, perhaps a decade or more (Blackstock et al., 2007). In this regard, it may be more useful to address possible mid-level changes that
2 The issues surrounding process-related difficulties in action or participatory research may be of interest when seen in the context of relationships of reciprocity. While successful action research can result in closer working relationships, increased levels of trust, and better cooperation (i.e. social capital), and increased community capacity, failures of action researchers to follow through with fairness and
transparency risks creating negative outcomes such as withdrawal or disinterest in future projects or even negative reciprocity, leading to a destruction of social capital.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
can occur during the formation of stronger institutions, which may take a considerable about of time. Many authors have linked the development of social capital with other changes that occur within communities (for example, Gordon, Kayseas, & Moroz, 2017;
Riel, 2017; Urquhart & Wearing, 2017), and these criteria can be used to measure
processes and outcomes during a long-term, ongoing project. The study of the “how” this social capital is built could be useful in assisting with more efficient negotiations and interactions between researchers and communities.