The dual imperatives of action research (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Journal of Action Research
The article explores and discusses whether we as action researchers are undermining or subverting our own intuitions and intentions, or at least not doing justice to it, when mixing a) learning and exploration through individual and collective action and reflection, with b) elements from conventional researchmethods. The article'sb asic question: Can the intentions and resultsf rom a) be reduced to and validated fully or partly through b) conventional methods?C an we save the scientific legitimacyo fa ction research by ultimately resorting to conventional methods and theories?W hat does action research uniquely add in relation to conventional learning, knowledge generation, and change projects?W ed iscuss some challengesr aised by questions like these, and suggest ways of handling them. After exploring ways of being "seduced" by conventional methods, we concludebyrecommending ag noseology to replace ao ne-dimensional epistemology, and by explaining and recommending the procedure of immanent critique as aw ay of developing insights and competencies from the inside of practices; i. e. a genuinely Action research method.
Action Research: From Theory to Practice
International Journal of Applied Sciences: Current and Future Research Trends , 2022
Action Research is a research approach that is constantly evolving in social sciences and management. Although this approach is deemed contentious, many positivist researchers have expressed their dissatisfaction and questioned its validity as a scientific methodology that adheres to rigorous research methods and standards. On the other hand, several researchers, particularly those who are considered practitioners of applied research, have discussed and defended action research as a viable methodology for generating knowledge, developing solutions, and contributing to the knowledge development of one's own, one's organization's, and one's community, while promoting and taking actions to solve business and socioeconomic problems in a rapidly changing and unpredictably volatile environment. Historically, the validity of Action Research as a branch of epistemology has been debated in conjunction with the topic of the validity of Action Research in relation to traditional research. This research paper is an attempt to discuss and clarify the ambiguity behind the characteristics of the action research and present its most essential aspects and competitive advantages in different field, with strong emphasize on the role of researchers or practitioners and their active collaboration with organizations to generate sustainable action-based learning and integrated at the individual and organizational levels.
A Review of the Nature of Action Research
I (iii) an interplay between restricted/fixed and extended/flexible approaches. This diversity has resulted in two general reactions. Many have attempted to arrive at a restricted, fixed and 'ideal' definition of action research and its core characteristics. This position tends to suggest that action research should always attempt to achieve relatively ambitious goals based on a critical orientation and strong research participation. Alternatively, others have adopted a more extended and flexible approach where: (a) the expectations of the extent and level of change are more modest; (b) the requirement of participation is more flexible; and most significantly (c) methodologically, a wide range of features can be accommodated with a willingness to combine a range of research elements in a way that 'suits the circumstances'.
IJAR – International Journal of Action Research
How do we conceptualise, communicate, and describe Action Research in alanguagewhich expresses and corresponds adequately to the basic assumptions behind Action Research?Our call for papers tried to pinpoint some very specific challenges for Action Research as we see it: As Action Researchers, when writing applications for research funds, when communicating research insights, when developing knowledge in collaboration with stakeholders, when reasoning and voicing knowledgeinresearch communities, we often feel forced to navigate in alanguage field foreign to our Action Research activity,and compelled to use conventional, mostly interpretive social research terminology to legitimise our creation of knowledge as research. This languagefield is, to alarge extent, still based on aprincipal division of labour between intellectual and manual work, knower and known, and researchera nd researched, creating ahorizon of meaning linked to astill dominantbut old-fashioned and monopolised knowledge management regime. This terminology reflects an institutionalised but hardly validated division of labour in the understanding of social knowledgegeneration, othering the subjects of study. Thereby the more basic and radical knowledge generation processes happening in certain forms of Action Research are made almost invisible and stretched between the "inner" language of contextualknowledge and value production, and other, "outer" ways of communicating scientific knowledge and research insights presumed as valid by aw ider research community and in society at large. Nevertheless, Action Research gains popularity in different professions and professional studies, in management and organszation studies, community development work, and in other areas concerned with practical relevance, application, and development. The situation reflects societal changes concerning the social distribution of education and knowledge generation, from having been monopolised in specialised academic institutions to becoming much more socially distributed. As indicated, social or human knowledge development and creation need to come to its own, and find its own form, similarly to how natural science and technology have come to their own during modernity. Bringing social and human knowledgetoits own, however, does not mean imitation or emulation of natural science. Extantf orms of inquiry all need to be critically examined, transformed,a nd adjusted to the radically practice based creation of knowledge in core Action Research. Certain forms of practitioner Action Research are already making progress in their attempts at this by connecting to more colloquial and prevalent understandings of experience which do not operate within the divisions of conventional research. These attempts are si
Editorial: Future perspectives on action research
IJAR – International Journal of Action Research
This is my first editorial as editor in chief of International JournalofAction Research (IJAR), and Iamhappy to open it by referring to the first contribution in this issue, atribute to Danilo Streck, whohas preceded me serving our journal for 12 years, from 2010 to 2021. The tribute is signed by Werner Fricke, who made the initial proposaland Olav Eikeland, Richard Ennals, Øyvind Palshaugen, Emil Albert Sobottka and me, who have had the pleasure to work with Danilo in the group of editors of IJAR in recent years. As part of the same transition process, Øyvind Palshaugen will not continue as editor in the future. It is thus agood moment to learn from his experience with action research, which we do through an interview entitled "40 years in 40 minutes" where Øyvind starts by sharing how he came to action research;reflects on relevant authors, organisations and traditions in his trajectory, and discusses the "use of words" and the relevanceo fa ction research cases as a mean to create knowledgeofgeneralvalue. These changes in IJAR take place in amoment when humanity is dealing, among others, with apandemic, wars, and the imminent need to react to climate change. We need,thus, to continue asking ourselves what was, what is, and what can be the contribution of action research to social challenges. Werner Fricke, Davydd Greenwood, Danilo Streck and Ihave been writing about it since we met in the IJAR 2020 event. At that moment Werner Fricke posed the emergent challenges he saw for action research and invited the rest of us to develop acoherent argumentaboutit without hiding our differences and diverse priorities. We believe we have come together with an article, "On Social Productivity and FuturePerspectives on Action Research",that manifests ways of making our differences count. Our exploration of common grounds tarts by acknowledging that then ew forms of capitalism are fracturing individuals into apolitical wants and needs, neutralising the core of action research, which is the integrity of the individual and the social fabric. Based on the discussion of free market, disaster capitalism and surveillance capitalism, we have searched for positive deviants. These are action research related processes where participants aim at counteracting these trends in some way or other. Learning from these experiences, we discuss how action research can contribute to recreating the citizen-actor, and to integratingi ndividuals in society. Our aim with this paper is not to provide any definite answers, but to initiate adialogue forum in IJAR on the future perspectives of action research,stimulating adiscussion about the questions raised. Regarding the actual and historical strengths and weaknesses of action research and the social and economic changes that have occurreds ince the times of Kurt Lewin and Karl Polanyiw et hink the time has come to reflect on whether and how action research can meet the challengesoft he more and more aggressive and destructive forms of modern capitalism. We insist in action researchers' responsibility to foster and to build on the integrity and common decency of thei ndividual, to enable active citizens to self-determination at work and to create democratic societies. Action research is about democratic and
International Journal of Action Research, 2022
How do we conceptualise, communicate, and describe Action Research in alanguagewhich expresses and corresponds adequately to the basic assumptions behind Action Research?Our call for papers tried to pinpoint some very specific challenges for Action Research as we see it: As Action Researchers, when writing applications for research funds, when communicating research insights, when developing knowledge in collaboration with stakeholders, when reasoning and voicing knowledgeinresearch communities, we often feel forced to navigate in alanguage field foreign to our Action Research activity,and compelled to use conventional, mostly interpretive social research terminology to legitimise our creation of knowledge as research. This languagefield is, to alarge extent, still based on aprincipal division of labour between intellectual and manual work, knower and known, and researchera nd researched, creating ahorizon of meaning linked to astill dominantbut old-fashioned and monopolised knowledge management regime. This terminology reflects an institutionalised but hardly validated division of labour in the understanding of social knowledgegeneration, othering the subjects of study. Thereby the more basic and radical knowledge generation processes happening in certain forms of Action Research are made almost invisible and stretched between the "inner" language of contextualknowledge and value production, and other, "outer" ways of communicating scientific knowledge and research insights presumed as valid by aw ider research community and in society at large. Nevertheless, Action Research gains popularity in different professions and professional studies, in management and organszation studies, community development work, and in other areas concerned with practical relevance, application, and development. The situation reflects societal changes concerning the social distribution of education and knowledge generation, from having been monopolised in specialised academic institutions to becoming much more socially distributed. As indicated, social or human knowledge development and creation need to come to its own, and find its own form, similarly to how natural science and technology have come to their own during modernity. Bringing social and human knowledgetoits own, however, does not mean imitation or emulation of natural science. Extantf orms of inquiry all need to be critically examined, transformed,a nd adjusted to the radically practice based creation of knowledge in core Action Research. Certain forms of practitioner Action Research are already making progress in their attempts at this by connecting to more colloquial and prevalent understandings of experience which do not operate within the divisions of conventional research. These attempts are si
Action research: a contradiction in terms
Oxford Review of Education, 2004
The core idea of action research is that there should be an intimate relationship between inquiry and practical or political activities. A challenge to this idea based on an influential ancient Greek hierarchy between theoria and praxis is examined. The contrary, pragmatist, notion that all inquiry arises out of human activity is accepted, but not the instrumentalism sometimes derived from it. Research must be treated as operating on the same plane as any other activity, but the relationship between the two will always be less than isomorphic, and this creates the prospect of severe tensions. These can be managed contextually in two ways: by subordinating inquiry, or by making it primary. Both are legitimate, but any attempt to treat the two components of action research as equal faces contradiction.
Qeios
The main purpose of this review was to examine the gaps observed in conceptualizing and operationalizing action research and make suggestions for future practice. In doing so, among the different types of literature review, a narrative literature review was used. Using keywords for searching the literature, different online sources were consulted; relevant data (literature) were selected and analyzed. Based on the results of the analysis, I offer suggestions, made modifications, and concluding remarks.