19

What is Action Research?

Via
A review of the Literature

A Dissertation Extract
By
Dr. George Slentz

If you choose to use this document as part of your research, use the following
reference notation:
Slentz, G.M. (2003). A collaborative action research approach to developing
statewide information standards supporting the Delaware education
network (Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College, 2003).

20
CHAPTER II
Literature Review

Inclusion Criteria
After determining the focus of this dissertation, several Wilmington College
faculty members including academic advisors offered suggestions of relevant
literature references. In addition to those recommendations, two annotated AR
bibliographies by Dick (2002a & 2002b) provided a wealth of relevant material to
review.
The Internet served as both an independent resource as well as a method
to access EBSCOhost an electronic search engine which accesses numerous
academic databases, such as Academic Search Premier, Masterfile, and
Business Source Elite. Only articles that offered text availability through
EBSCOhost were reviewed. Most Internet searches were conducted using
www.Google.com an excellent, in depth publicly available search engine. In
utilizing either EBSCOhost or Google, various combinations of search words
were used. For example, one search would consist of research and action and
the second action research. Since most search engines used, search, based
on word sequence, interchanging the searching sequence of the words was
essential. The searches centered in two specific topic areas: action research
methodologies and information technology standards.

21
The Wilmington College Library provided some additional resources
dealing with research and researching techniques, as well completed
Wilmington College dissertations.

Overview of Action Research Literature

Action research literature was reviewed first, including definitions,
methodologies, origins, and evolution. An in depth examination of AR literature
revealed there was no universal AR methodology, but rather a confusing
conglomeration of methodologies all alleged to be AR. In some instances, the
differences were subtle, such as who identified the research setting, the
researcher, or the client (Schein, 2001). In other more diverse examples,
conflicting paradigms, epistemologies, and methodologies emerged (Heron &
Reason, 1997). Swepson (1998) said, I found some of the literature on the
practice of action research to be contradictory and this left me confused about
how to practice it (p.2). Comments such as this one helped this researcher
appreciate that other researchers were equally confused. The context of an AR
study may appear disparate to different researchers. This lack of clarity and
definition was quite common in AR literature, and these discrepancies often
hindered understanding and comprehension of AR processes.
A variety of reasons for the shortcomings in AR discipline were identified:
a lack of integration in the literature, decentralization in practice, nomenclature
differences, and conflicting opinions. An inadequacy of the literature was
acknowledged by Greenwood and Levin (1998) as they pointed out that; existing

22
works are compendia, focus on a particular variety of AR to the exclusion of
others, or do not link the history, philosophy, and practice of AR to a sufficiently
broad set philosophical and political issues (p.5). Decentralization alludes to the
proliferation of methodologies across a variety of concepts and disciplines.
Greenwood and Levin further pointed out that action researchers were found in
social service agencies, nongovernmental organizations, international
development agencies, planning departments and industry. In academic
institutions, action researchers were found in disciplines such as education,
planning, communications, social services, program evaluation, sociology,
anthropology, and organizational behavior. As a result, AR practitioners do not
share common knowledge; they read different journals and books, and often
write in ignorance of relevant contributions of others in AR from other fields (p.
5). Nomenclature refers to misunderstandings that stem from the use of different
terminologies to explain similar concepts as pointed out by OBrien (2001) and
McTaggart (1997) and reflected in the number of names used to describe action
research including: participatory research, collaborative inquiry, emancipatory
research, action learning, and contextual research. OBrien stated further that
they were all just variations on the AR theme, although the approaches and
methodologies were somewhat different. McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead (1996)
highlighted conflicting opinions on the basic purpose of AR. Kemmis and
McTaggart from their text, An Action Research Planner, (as cited in McNiff,
Lomax, & Whitehead, 1996, p. 10) stated The linking of the terms action and
research highlights the essential feature of the method: trying out ideas in

23
practice as a means of increasing knowledge. Elliott, from his text on Action
Research for Educational Change (as cited in McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead,
1996, p. 9) argues, Action research is about improving practice rather than
producing knowledge. The two quotes seem to be at odds; the first one
emphasized increasing knowledge, while the second one emphasized, improving
practice rather than producing knowledge.
Contradictions in the literature make it difficult to provide a direct, focused,
and definitive overview of AR. In this review, some of the more common AR
contradictions were addressed by describing the similarities and differences
between AR epistemologies, methodologies, and associated processes.
The review additionally considered a variety of theories,
methodologies, frameworks, and examples involving AR usage in the IT industry,
and standardization of IT.

Action Research: Definitions, History, and Paradigms

What is and is not considered AR
In one respect, AR was effortlessly defined; because, imbedded in the first
or second paragraph of virtually all AR literature reviewed was a working
definition. However, these definitions vary significantly in both context and
content (McTaggart, 1997; OBrien, 2001; Stringer, 1999). Some of the leading
AR researchers and practitioners definitions of action research are presented
first, followed by the definition of AR used in this study. In general, the definitions

24
reflected AR schools of thought, methodologies, forms of praxis, and/or
associated paradigms.
1. Action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by
participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and
justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and
the situations in which the practices are carried out (Carr & Kemmis, 1986,
p. 162).
2. Action research can be described as a family of research methodologies,
which pursue action (or change) or research (or understanding) at the
same time. In most of its forms it does this by: using a cyclic or spiral
process which alternates between action and critical reflection and in the
later cycles, continuously refining methods, data, and interpretation in the
light of the understanding developed in the earlier cycles (Dick, 1999, p.
1).
3. AR is social research carried out by a team encompassing a professional
action researcher and members of an organization or community seeking
to improve their situation. AR promotes broad participation in the research
process and supports action leading to a more just or satisfying situation
for the stakeholders (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 4).
4. Action research is any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher
researchers, principals, school counselors, or other stakeholders in the
teaching/learning environment, to gather information about the ways that

25
their particular schools operate, how they teach, and how well their
students learn (Mills, 2000, p. 6).
5. Social psychologist Kurt Lewin, inventor of the term action research in
English language, describes action research as proceeding in a spiral of
steps, each of which is composed of planning, acting, observing, and
evaluating the result of the action. In practice, the process begins with a
general idea that some kind of improvement or change is desirable
(McTaggart, 1997, p. 27).
6. Action researchaims 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 stresses the importance of co-learning as
a primary aspect of the research process (OBrien, 2001, p. 2).
7. Action research is a participatory, democratic process concerned with
developing practical knowledge in the pursuit of worthwhile human
purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview which we believe is
emerging at this historical moment. It seeks to bring together action and
reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of
practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more

26
generally the flourishing of individual persons and their communities
(Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 1).

After interpreting a variety of researchers perspectives relating to the

genesis and definitions of AR, Stringer (1999) identified some common
themes that emerged across different schools of thought. He noted that
they all acknowledged fundamental investment in processes that:

Are rigorously empirical and reflective (or interpretive)

Engage people who have traditionally been called subjects as

active participants in the research process

Result in some practical outcome related to the lives or work of the

participants (p. XVIII).

The definitions vary significantly in that some reflected theoretical

foundations including epistemologies and related paradigms, some praxis and
methodologies, whereas others reflected results. The diversity in definitions
attributed to the wide variety of approaches in AR process and praxis. At
minimum, it establishes the chicken or egg question of which came first. Unless
researchers and practitioners establish a universal description of AR, AR
processes, methodologies, and praxis will most likely continue to diversify.
Stringers interpretation and summations of AR, fit well with the process
strategies this researcher developed and practiced during years in IT
management. So rather than attempting to adapt to unfamiliar practices, the AR
definition used for this study is:

27
AR is a systematic inquiry process that results in some practical outcome
as perceived by the participants involved in the process. AR is cyclical, involving
a series of spiral steps or activities such as planning, action, and fact-finding
(Lewin, 1997) or look, think, and act (Stringer, 1999); reflection occurs throughout
each of the steps. The process engages people who traditionally have been
called subjects as active participants; and is rigorously empirical and/or
interpretive (McTaggart, 1997; Stringer, 1999; Mills, 2000).
Greenwood and Levin (1998) pointed out that AR was not applied
research. AR explicitly rejects the separation between thought and action that
underlies the pure-applied distinction that has characterized social research for a
number of generations (p. 6). They believe that valid social knowledge was
derived from practical reasoning engaged in through action. Wadsworth (1998)
further characterized AR by affirming it was not research which sees
involvement as a contaminating process which bias the scientific effort, nor does
it have a problem with researchers identifying with the researched, and
researched for, seeing this rather essential to the gaining of engaged
understanding (p. 17). McTaggart (1997) also has her list of what participator
AR was not. She prefers using the prefix participatory when referring to AR, to
clarify the intention of its originators, for whom participation action research
implied people doing research for themselves. A summation of McTaggarts
clarification is provided below:
1. Participatory AR is not the usual thing social practitioners ordinarily do
when they think about their work. It is more systematic and

28
collaborative in collecting evidence on which to base rigorous group
reflection, and in planning change.
2. Participatory AR is not simply problem solving. It involves problem
posing, not just problem solving.
3. Participatory AR is not research done on other people. It is research
done by particular people on their own work, to help them improve
what they do, including how they work with and for others.
4. Participatory AR is not a method or technique for policy
implementation. It does not accept truths created outside the
community or truths created by researchers working inside the
community who treat the community as an object for research.
5. Participatory AR is not the scientific method applied to social
(educational, agricultural) work. There is not just one view of the
scientific method, there are many. Participatory AR is not is not just
about testing hypotheses or using data to come to conclusions.
(p. 39)

Most of the issues identified under what AR is not were basically the
same issues addressed under what is AR, although with a reversed context. In
some instances, the what is not approach provided a distinct clarity that was not
always captured in a what is definition, as evidenced in the not statement AR
is not applied research. As a result, the definitions provided a slightly different

29
perspective for comparing and contrasting established research methodologies
and epistemologies.
Focusing on what AR was not, brought to light several ideological issues.
For example, Wadsworth (1998) explained AR was not a contaminating process,
which biases scientific approach. This helped clarify a personal ideology that
researchers had to remain detached, unbiased, and serve essentially as an
observer, to do effective research. Additionally, McTaggart (1997) further
underscored that AR was not research done on other people; rather AR research
was done by a particular group of people on there own work, in order to improve
what they do. This further helped this researcher to understand that AR was a
valid grounded research approach.

AR Genesis and Early Evolution

Although AR had emerged with great diversity and diffusion, its origin was
generally agreed on by researchers and was attributed to Kurt Lewin, who was
often referred to as the father of AR (Greenwood & Levin, 1998; Mills, 2000;
OBrien, 2001; Reason & Bradbury, 2001;). Kurt Lewin was born in Prussia (now
part of Poland) in 1890; he studied in Germany earning his PhD in 1916 from the
University of Berlin. During this period, he experienced anti-Semitism first hand.
In 1933, he chose to leave Germany to seek academic and personal freedoms.
He and his family moved to the United States, where he first worked at the
Cornell School of Economics, then at the University of Iowa, and finally in 1944
he established the Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT (Smith, 2001).

30
On his way to the United States, he stopped by Cambridge University
(UK), and was given a tour of the University by Eric Trist an aspiring literature
student. Trist was so moved by Lewins ideas that he changed his major to
psychology, and began a lifetime association with the Polish born social
psychologist. Trist began his career as an applied psychologist, building upon
and extending Lewins work and theories in collaboration with his colleagues at
the Travistock Institution in London. Travistock became dedicated to resolving
practical problems by using AR. This AR approach later became a core
methodology in the socio-technical school (Pasmore, 2001) and the emergence
of the industrial tradition or movement (Greenwood & Levin, 1998).
Although Mills (2000) suggested Lewin originally coined the term action
research in 1934, OBrien (2001) maintained that Lewin first coined action
research in his 1946 paper Action Research and Minority Problems. His paper
characterized AR as comparative research on the conditions and effects of
various forms of social action and research leading to social action. He used a
process of iterative steps also referred to as a spiral of steps; each of which is
composed of a cycle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the
action.
Action research grew and expanded in Western Europe largely through
the efforts of Travistock. This new methodology was referred to as Industrial
Democracy, a systematic and large scale AR effort in Western industrialized
countries. Industrial Democracy followed the tradition of democratic processes,
collaboration and participation of ordinary people, and the importance of

31
reflective thought in resolving practical problems. Industrial democracy later
expanded to the East, finding fertile ground in Japan, where their culture readily
accepted collective work and the idea of groups taking on problem solving and
operational responsibilities (Greenwood and Levin, 1998).

AR Paradigms and Theoretical Foundations

The notion of a paradigm or worldview as a strategic perspective that
organized our approach to being in the world had become commonplace since
Kuhn published, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Heron & Reason, 1997).
Kuhn (1996) pointed out that accepted examples of actual scientific practice
examples which include law, theory, application, and instrumentation together
provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific
research (p. 10). The traditions inherent in paradigms, however, were not
necessarily scientifically supported, that was to say, they represented a
distillation of what we think about the world but cannot prove (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). In basic terms, Barker (1992) defined a paradigm as a set of rules and
regulation (written or unwritten) that does two things: it establishes or defines
boundaries; and it tells you how to behave inside the boundaries to be
successful (p. 32).
Heron and Reason (1997) presented arguments for a participatory
worldview of inquiry paradigm while critiquing and deconstructing competing
research paradigms of positivism, postpositivism, critical thinking, and
constructivism. Lincoln and Guba (1985), stressed postpositivism and a

32
naturalistic paradigm as they emphasized that it was imperative that inquiry itself
be shifted from a positive to a postpositivist stance. For, if a new paradigm of
thought and belief is emerging, it is necessary to construct a parallel new
paradigm of inquiry (p. 15). OBrien (2001) situates AR into three varying
research paradigms: positivist, interpretive, and praxis. His interpretative
paradigm had many of the same characteristics that distinguished a postpositivist
paradigm. His praxis paradigm shared many of the perspectives of both the
positivist and interpretive paradigms, emphasizing that knowledge was derived
from practice.
This project was initially planed to employ a positivist research
paradigm; however, in reviewing different philosophical perspectives and
associated paradigms, a more middle-of-the-road approach was employed
that identified closely with OBriens (2001) praxis paradigm.

The

integration of both positivist and interpretive paradigms greatly increased

the flexibility to the project by linking qualitative and quantitative
methodologies for collecting and analyzing data.
Mills (2000) provided a basic theoretical foundation that was helpful in
understanding some of the underpinnings in AR; he classified AR into two main
theories: critical (or theory based) action research and practical action research
(p. 7). Critical AR derived its name from the body of critical theory on which it
was based (not because this type of AR is critical although it may very well be
used in a critical situation). Practical AR emphasized the how to approach and
was less philosophical. His description offered a level of clarity through

33
simplification. After gaining a basic understanding however, the distinctive
differences in AR processes became apparent. Further research and
understanding of the conceptional framework was needed in order to identify a
more sophisticated distinction among AR processes. Through further research, a
slightly more elaborate framework was discovered that was usually attributed to
Habermas (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Myers, 1997; Wortley, 1996; Masters, 1995).
Carr and Kemmis (1986) describe Habermas proposal that knowledge is the
outcome of human activity that is motivated by natural needs and interests (p.
134). They further point out, Habermas contends that human knowledge is
constituted by virtue of three knowledge-constitutive interests which he labels the
technical, the practical, and the emancipatory (p. 134); each interest
furthermore related to a corresponding approach of science. Habermas
contends, the approach of the empirical-analytic sciences incorporates a
technical cognitive interest; that of the historical-hermeneutic sciences
incorporates a practical one; and the approach of critical oriented sciences
incorporates the emancipatory cognitive interest (Habermas, 1968/1972, p.
308). Based on Habermas analysis, Kemmis (2001) and his group constructed a
three-tiered model that related the interests of empirical -analytic (technical),
hermeneutics (practical), and critical (emancipatory) to AR. Empirical-analytic or
natural science relates to technical interest usually affiliated with work; its main
focus was a means to an end, and a means to getting things accomplished
effectively by following a positivist paradigm. Hermeneutics or interpretative
science related to a practical interest and involved wise and prudent decision-

34
making in practical situations. Critical science related to emancipatory interests
and involved emancipating people from determination of habit, custom, illusion,
and coercion (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis, 2001). Using Habermas
framework, examples of AR processes that coincide with his theoretical
foundations are provided below. As mentioned previously, theoretical
frameworks were not usually included in the literature describing AR processes
or methodology. Therefore, the placing of an AR process into one of Kemmis
three tiers was based on this researchers interpretations of the most prominent
characteristics of each particular AR process. The examples selected have
relatively straightforward or clear cut characteristics and require minimal
interpretation to classify them into Habermas three-tier model.
Empirical-analytic. According to Kemmis (2001), this was a Means to an
end form of AR problem solving; and regarded as successful when the outcome
matched the aspirations, or when the goal of the project had been attained.
Empirical-analytic was oriented towards functional improvement measured in
terms of its success in changing particular outcomes of practice. Most examples
aimed to increase or decrease the incidence of a particular outcome, such as
increasing the rate of production in a factory. This form of AR was a form of
problem-solving, and was regarded as successful when outcomes matched
aspirations. Researchers do not normally question the goals or how the situation
is conducted or constructed. It takes a narrow, generally pragmatic (in the
ordinary-language use of the term) view of its purpose (p. 92).

35
OBrien (2001) provided a similar theoretical framework, but he referred to
empirical-analytic as traditional AR that stemmed from Lewins work within
organizations and encompassed the concepts and practices of field theory, group
dynamics, T-groups, and the clinical model. He pointed out, this approach was
relatively conservative, generally maintaining the status quo of the power
structure of the organization.
Technical AR as described by Carr and Kemmis (1986) occurred when
facilitators persuade practitioners to test the findings of external research in their
own practices, and where the outcome of the tests feed new findings in external
literature. The emphasis was on developing and extending the research
literature base not on improving practice through collaborative or self-reflective
control.
In general, AR under this framework was accomplished within the
parameters of a positivistic paradigm. Although not a necessity, technical AR
most likely employed a quantitative methodology for data collection and focused
on progressive achievement towards a particular goal or outcome. Early
methodologies did not involve changing social structure or consider the affects of
learning or knowledge growth that may occur during the process. Two AR
processes that follow this framework were Industrial Democracy and
Sociotechnical.
The Industrial Democracy tradition was born when Travistock researchers
lead by Eric Trist, assisted a Norwegian coal mining company with improving
democracy at the shop-floor level. Trist employment of Kurt Lewins change

36
model in the study resulted in the development of the first generation of action
research processes and methodologies. Lewins model simplified the change
process into three basic steps of unfreezing, moving, and freezing (Lewin, 2000).
Greenwood & Levin (1998) further pointed out that both experimental design and
change processes were prominent in the early development of the Industrial
Democracy tradition in AR. These early methodologies required researchers to
complete research analysis, recommend a new design approach, and then
structure the processes by which the changes were implemented. Changes
were implemented and then the organization was permitted to develop a stable
state incorporating the changes. Greenwood and Levin also stated,
Consultation with the participants was not to be found (p. 29).
Industrial Democracy focused on ways research results improved
participants abilities to control their own situations as a result of a redesigned
organization. Further, it began the first reflections about designing research
processes that redefined the relationship between researchers and participants
(Greenwood & Levin, 1998). Researchers working within this tradition played a
clear-cut expert role; they collected data, analyzed it, and developed
recommendations for a new design. Researchers involved the workers who
were directly affected by the change only during the implementation stage in the
change process. Although the seminal studies on the Norwegian coal mining
company had great bearing on AR development, Pasmore (2001) pointed out
that the studies were not true examples of AR since the researchers served as

37
observers of the naturally occurring experiments rather than collaborators in the
planning and evaluation of the experiments.
The single major significant outcome that sprouted from the Industrial
Democracy tradition was the development of sociotechnical thinking (Greenwood
& Levin, 1998). This also represented a major shift from the prevalent
Tayloristic-Scientific Management thinking, where technology and management
control were dominant. In the new paradigm of sociotechnical design (as cited
by Greenwood and Levin, 1998), Trist differentiated between the old and new
management paradigms. Trish pointed out in the old Scientific Management
(associated with Taylor) paradigm, that man was an extension of the machine
and an expendable spare part; the organization chart defined a hierarchy, and
operation was through competition and gamesmanship. In the new
(sociotechnical) paradigm, Trist offered a fresh perspective in that he viewed man
as complementary to the machine and as a resource to be developed; the
organization (chart) was designed flat and operation was through collaboration
and collegiality.
Sociotechnical thinking evolved, integrating other theories and models into
the developing process. One other significant new perspective was the addition
of Von Bertalanffys theory of open systems, better known as general systems
theory (GST). Systems thinking observed organizations as complex systems
made up of interrelated parts most usefully studied as an emergent whole (Flood,
2001). As sociotechnical systems theory evolved, it included the technical
system as well as the material being worked on, the level of mechanization or

38
automation, operations including centrality, and a variety of other impacting
functions. In general, sociotechnical systems theory viewed the technical system
as an integral part of the larger work system as a whole. According to
Greenwood and Levin (1998), the systems approach underlies AR in all of its
manifestations. Both AR and GST rely heavily on a holistic view of the world and
on relative efforts to transform society into more open systems.
Hermeneutics. According to Greenwood and Levin (1998), Hermeneutics
is based on the ontological position that the world is subjective and the
epistemological project is to make interpretations of the subjective world (p. 68).
This interpretative view had a long history beginning as a science for interpreting
biblical texts (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). By the eighteenth century, it was also used
for interpreting literature, works of art, and music. By the late nineteenth century,
the social sciences expanded their epistemological basis by embracing
hermeneutics. Denzin (2001) reflected on its use in the social sciences by
recognizing that properly conceptualized interpretative research became a civic,
participatory, or collaborative project that joins the researcher with the
researched in an ongoing moral dialogue.
OBrien (2001) provided a similar theoretical framework, referring to
practical AR as contextural AR or action learning. AR was contextural, insofar as
it involved reconstituting the structural relations among actors in a social
environment; it was co-generative, in that it attempted to involve all affected
stakeholders; holistic, as each participant understood the entirety of the project;
and collaborative, by stressing that participants acted as project designers and

39
co-researchers. Within this framework, social transformation occurred by
consensus and normative incrementalism. This approach closely aligned with
the CAR process used to develop IT standards in this study.
In practical AR, external facilitators form cooperative relationships with
practitioners, helping them to articulate their concerns (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). In
collaboration, they planed the strategic actions necessary for change, monitor the
problems and effects of changes, and reflected on the value of the changes.
Through this process, the stakeholders were responsible for monitoring their own
educational practices with an immediate aim of expanding their personal
knowledge of the project. McNiff (2000) further described collaboration as a
caring praxis. While we aim to develop and maintain our own and others
autonomy, this was always done with respect for others. McNiff stated, In this
sense, collaboration becomes an effort to develop mutually respectful autonomy,
a practice in which people work together as equals, engage in the give and take
of negotiating positions, and agree settlements which are then subjected to
critical processes of evaluation and modification (p. 217). Collaboration is an
attitude, requiring a willingness to listen and communicate as well as move in the
direction of commonly agreed practice.
Practical AR gets its title because it developed the practical reasoning of
practitioners. Carr and Kemmis further stated that, It is to be distinguished from
technical AR because it treats the criteria by which practices are to be judged as
problematic and open to development through self-reflection, rather than treating
them as given (p. 203). Kemmis (2001) further distinguished that, unlike

40
technical AR, practical action researchers aim just as much at understanding
themselves and changing themselves as the subjects of a practice, as changing
the outcomes of the practice.
There are many AR processes that follow the hermeneutic approach. In
fact, the majority of AR processes and derivatives of those processes employ an
interpretative strategy. However, rather than discussing multiple process and
variations, two AR processes that provided a level of diversity and interest are
community-based AR and action science.
Communitybased AR seeks to change the social and personal dynamics
of the research situation, providing a noncompetitive and nonexploitative as well
as enhancing the lives of all those who participate (Stringer, 1999). By
employing a collaborative approach to inquiry, communitybased AR seeks to
build positive working relationships, productive interactions, and communicative
styles among participants.
Communitybased AR further draws on an explicit set of social values and
was seen as an inquiry process that employed the following characteristics:
democratic encouraging participation from all; equitable acknowledging
peoples worth; liberating providing freedom from oppression; and life
enhancing encouraging peoples full potential. According to Stringer (1999), all
stakeholders whose lives are affected by the problem should be engaged in the
investigation process. Stakeholders participate in a process of rigorous inquiry;
collecting information and reflecting on that information, hoping to transform their
understanding about the nature of the problem under investigated. The new set

41
of understandings is applied to an implementation plan for resolution of the
problem that in turn can be re-evaluated.
There were a few key features to communitybased AR worth noting for
their relevance to this study. First, communitybased AR follows a hermeneutic
approach to evaluation, which implies a more democratic, empowering, and
humanizing approach to inquiry. Second, communitybased AR very closely
parallels Participatory AR, which is discussed in the critical AR section of this
review. Emancipation appears to be the only difference between the two
processes. While both process involve all stakeholders, participatory AR aims to
liberate stakeholders from a social injustice by changing individual actions or
thinking on one hand, while simultaneously changing the culture of the groups,
institutions, societies to which they belong (McTaggart, 1997). Within the
framework of critical AR, emancipation was a significant factor in the inquiry and
expectations. Within the framework of community-based AR, Stringer
acknowledged the necessity for confrontational action in some situations,
however, it is fundamentally a consensual approach to inquiry and works from
the assumption that cooperation and consensus making should be the primary
orientation of research activity (p. 21).
Action science grew out of the work competed by John Dewey and Kurt
Lewin (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Schn, 1983). A variety of definitions
written by either Chris Argyris or Donald Schn are available describing action
science. In fact, Friedman (2001) compiled four of their definitions into a
composite definition. Action science is a form of social practice which integrates

42
both the production and use of knowledge for the purpose of promoting learning
with and among individuals and systems whose work is characterized by
uniqueness, uncertainty, and instability (p. 159).
Action science according to Argyris and Schn (1996) focused on the
problem of creating conditions for collaborative inquiry in which people in
organizations function as co-researchers rather than merely as subjects. They
further conveyed that people were more willing to share information about their
own intentions and reasons for actions when they share ownership of the
process generating, interpreting, testing, and using the information.
According to Ellis and Kiely (2000), action science was an inquiry
approach suited to an organization culture, which appreciates double-loop
learning and was committed to interpreting knowledge in a way that revealed
organizational patterns, process, and defensive routines. Action science
intervention was psychological since it explored innermost feelings and emotional
reactions, some of which were protected by personal defense mechanisms. As
these defense mechanisms breakdown, individuals may feel vulnerable and
exposed. Risks to self and others involved were reduced if the group themselves
were sensitive to others feelings and ensured participants finish sessions on a
positive note.
Critical AR. Critical AR owes its origins to theories that intended to
enlighten, empower, and emancipate people from oppression (Brown and Jones,
2001). This branch of AR includes participatory, southern participatory,
contemporary feminist analysis, (Greenwood & Levin, 1998) as well as some

43
educational initiatives (Mills, 2000) and was drawn from the critical theory of
Habermas, neo-Marxism, and liberationist philosophies. Kemmis (2001)
believed, this form of AR aimed at improving outcomes and the understanding of
practitioners, assisting practitioners in work critiques, as well as intervening in the
cultural, social, and historical process of everyday lives and activities.
OBrien (2001) outlined a similar theoretical framework, referring to critical
AR as radical AR and described its roots as Marxian - dialectical materialism.
Additionally critical AR had a strong focus on overcoming of power imbalances
and emancipating those with little power. Participatory AR often found in
liberationist movements and feminist analysis both strived for social
transformation via an advocacy process to strengthen peripheral groups in
society.
The common descriptor in each of the provided perspectives of critical AR
was the term emancipatory. The goal of critical AR was liberation through
knowledge gathering (Mills, 2000).
Critical AR had its roots in the critical theory of the social sciences and
humanities, and draws heavily from postmodern theory, challenging the notion of
truth and objectivity that traditional scientific theory relies upon. According to
Mills (2000), postmodernists argue that truth is relative, conditional, and
situational, and that knowledge is always an outgrowth of prior experience (p. 8).
Further, critical AR pulls apart and examines the mechanisms of knowledge
production while questioning many of the basic assumptions on which modern
life is based.

44
Numerous AR approaches and processes were included under the
umbrella of critical AR. There was little standardization of nomenclature and
what one researcher referred to as participatory AR another researcher referred
to as participator research or emancipatory AR. Action research terminology was
always complex, and nowhere more than when describing participatory action
research (PAR). For some, PAR and AR indicated the same process, for others
the process was very different (Greenwood & Levin, 1998).
According to McTaggart (1997), PAR described a convergence of
traditions in certain kinds of action research and participatory research. The term
participatory was a necessity that distinguished authentic action research from
the miscellaneous array of research types that fall under the descriptor action
research, when requesting information from databases. The term action
research was used to describe almost every effort and method under the sun that
attempted to inform action in some way. When contemplating work or trying to
distinguish work that claims to be participatory action research, McTaggart
suggests three general questions be asked.
How is this example participatory research?

What does this

example tell us about the criteria we might use to judge claims that
an endeavor is participatory action research (to test our theory of
what participatory action research is)? And most important of all,
what contributions has this example made to the improvement of
the understanding, practice, and social situation of participants and
others in the context described? (p. 26)

45
The process of PAR was inadequately described in terms of mechanical
steps or sequence, because it is not a self-contained process (Kemmis &
Wilkinson, 1998). PAR does involve a spiral of self-reflective cycles of: planning
a change, acting and observing the process, reflecting on the process, and finally
re-planning based on the outcome of the action initiated and resulting change. In
reality, these stages or steps overlapped, and initial plans quickly became
obsolete in the light of learning from experience. The process was fluid, open,
and responsive. The steps were not as important as the participants
involvement, and knowledge gained as well as the evolution of their practice.
The future of PAR looks promising, as it continues to grow in popularity
and evolve contextually. As a result of the 1997 World Congress (on AR), Fals
Borda (2001) identified seven emergent tasks that would lead to further growth of
this field of inquiry. Additionally, he emphasized that the merging ways in which
participation, action, and research were articulated would determine the success
and survival of different PAR schools. He argued the positive effects that PAR
has on communities, cities, families, churches, enterprises, and business must
be considered, as well as the fact that PAR can contribute to advances in science
and technology, as well as changing social patterns and enrichment of human
culture.

46
References

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts,
methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schn, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, methods
and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Baker, C. R. (2000, December). Towards the increase use of action research in

accounting information systems. Accounting Forum 24, 366-379. Retrieved
November 24, 2002 from the Masterfile database.

Barker, J.A. (1992). Paradigms: The business of discovering the future. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.

Brown, T., & Jones, L. (2001). Action research and postmodernism:

Congruence and critique. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and
action research. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

47
Dick, B. (1997). A beginners guide to action research. Action Research
International. Retrieved June 8, 2001 from Southern Cross University, Action
Research Resources web site:
http://www. scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari/arr/guide.html

Dick, B. (1999). What is action research? . Retrieved October 4, 2002 from

Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web site:
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/whatisar.html

Dick, B. (2002a). An action research bibliography. Retrieved

October 6, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources
web site: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/biblio.html

Dick, B. (2002b). Recent books on action research and related topics.

Retrieved October 30, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action Research
Resources web site: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/books.html

Ellis, J. H. M., & Kiely, J. A. (2000). The promise of action inquiry in tackling
organizational problems in real time. Action Research International, Paper 5.
Retrieved March 7, 2001 from Southern Cross University, Action Research
Resources web site:http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-jellis00.html

48
Fals Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins
and challenges. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action
research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 27-37). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Flood, R. L. (2001). The relationship of systems thinking to action research. In

Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry & practice (pp. 133-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Friedman, V. J. (2001). Action science: Creating communities of inquiry in

communities of practice. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of
action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 159-170). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, D. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social
research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests (Shapiro, J. J., Trans.).

Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1968)

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative

Inquiry, 3(3). Retrieved October 7, 2002 from the Masterfile database.

49
Kemmis, S. (2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research:
Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jrgen Habermas. In
Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry & practice (pp. 91-102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study
of practice. In Atweh, B., Kemmis, S. & Weeks, P. (Eds.) Action research in
practice: Partnership for social justice in education (pp. 21-36). New York,
NY: Rutledge.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press.

Levin, M., & Greenwood, D. (2001). Pragmatic action research and the struggle
to transform universities into learning centers. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H.
(Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 103113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts & field training in social science.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

50
Masters, J. (1995). The history of action research. Action Research Electronic
Reader. Retrieved November 24, 2002 from Southern Cross University,
Action Research Resources web site:
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arr/arow/masters.html

McNiff, J. (with Whitehead, J.) (2000). Action research in organizations. New

York, NY: Routledge.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research
project. New York, NY: Routledge.

McTaggart, R. (Ed.). (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts

and consequences. Albany, NY: SUNY.

McTaggart, R. (1998). Is validity really an issue for participatory action

research? Studies in Culture, Organizations, and Societies 4(2). Retrieved
July 8, 2001 from the Masterfile database.

Mills, G.E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

51
OBrien, R. (2001). An overview of the methodological approach of action
research. Retrieved July 3, 2002 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001) Introduction: Inquiry and participation in

search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H.
(Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schein, E. (2001). Clinical inquiry/research. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.)

Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 228-237).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in

action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swepson, P. (1998). Separating the Ideals of research from the methodology of
research, either action research or science, can lead to better research.
Action Research International, Paper 2. Retrieved
March 7, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources
web site: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari/ari-swepson.html

52
Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research? Action Research
International. Retrieved March 7, 2002 from Southern Cross University,
Action Research Resources web site:
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari/ari-wadworth.html

Wortley, S. (1996). Business as usual or action research in practice? Action

Research Electronic Reader. Retrieved November 24, 2002 from Southern
Cross University, Action Research Resources web site:
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arr/arow/rwortley.html