The action research dissertation

: A guide for students and faculty. Herr, Kathryn & Anderson, Gary L. (2005). Thousand Oaks, London and Delhi: Sage.

1. Introduction (1-7)

The authors note that action research, despite its similarities with QUAL (even with QUAN), is different in that "research participants themselves are either in control of the research or are participants in the design and methodology of the research" (p. 1) and action is central to research. They stated as the most important feature the shifting locus of control from professional researchers to research subjects. They noted several terms indicating research in collaboration with practitioners or community members: PAR, community-based PAR, participatory rural appraisal, feminist action research, emancipatory praxis... The authors choose action research as an umbrella term of these.

The authors defined action research as (1) inquiry done "by or with insiders to an organization or community" (p. 3) (2) action-oriented, (3) a reflective process, meaning "deliberately and systematically undertaken and generally requires that some form of evidence be presented to support assertions."(p. 3). Interestingly, the authors argued that "what constitutes evidence or, in more traditional terms, data is still being debated" (p. 3). (4) It is value laden. The authors rightly pointed out that although action research hopes for solving pressing problems or improving situations, what constitutes improvement or a solution is not self-evident. That reflects conflicting values and an unequal distribution of power and resources. Here they stress the importance of reflexivity: "[T]he notion of reflexivity is crucial because action researchers must interrogate received notions of improvement or solutions in terms of who ultimately benefits from the actions undertaken"(p. 4)

The authors observe a researcher's double burden: action (improvement of practice or social change) and research (valid knowledge production), which sets up a conflict between the rigor and the relevance of the research. Similarly, action research demands a form of intervention which is not honored by traditional researchers. The authors pointed out such interventions constitutes a spiral of action cycles--plan-act-observe-reflect (kemmis 1982, p.7)

The authors also observe that "there is more writing about action research than documentation of actual research studies" (p. 6) They suggest that "a dissertation may represent the documentation of a successful collaboration and be used as a case study of not only the process but also the product of the collaboration" (p. 6).
2. Action research traditions and knowledge interests (8-28)

The authors noted two bands of action research: business-oriented administration and emancipatory practice linked to anticapitalist, grassroots movement. They asserted that "action research is working with an oppressed community ti identify what Freire(1970) called generative themes, or issues that the community agreed had highest priority" (p. 9) Participatoy action research (PAR) emphasizes the aspect of this internal/participatory process from insiders. The authors noted, "Participatory action research (PAR) tempers this expert knowledge with the expertise of locals about their own problems and solutions" (p. 10).

The authors defined participatory research by and large in the legacy of Freire (1970 Pedagogy of the Oppressed). He viewed research as a form of social action in which generative themes are identified and used as a basis of literacy instruction through collaboration. Focusing on Freirean-inspired participatory research, Brown and Tandon(1983) argued that traditional action research concentrated on an individual or group level of analysis, whereas emancipatory participatory research tends to focus on a broader societal analysis. Such PR often creates a resistance to the research.

On the other hand, coining the term co-operative inquiry, Heron (1996) undertook experiential approaches to action research, emphasizing intersubjectivity among researchers and participants: "[T]here is the possibility of reciprocal participative knowing" (p. 11)

The authors remarked that both the trends (liberation or humanistic psychology) are concerned with using PR for humanization.

The authors pointed out the danger of co-optation in doing action research. They argued that the nature of social institutions is keeping its status quo, thus, if action research lacks a critical spirit, it runs the risk of legimitizing the current status quo.

They noted emerging critical approaches to action research from feminist and critical race theorists to a lesser extent.

Epistemologically, the authors trace back to Jurgen Habermas (1971, Knowledge and Human Interests), who argued knowledge production is never neutral and always pursued with some interest. He argued three types of interest: technical interest (controlling over the natural and social realm), practical interest (gaining understanding through interpretation), and emancipatory interest (the release of human potential and the investigation of ideology and power relation). Depending on types of interest, the authors argue that research aims vary. They see action research in tune with emancipatory knowledge interest, which aims at critical reflection on power constraint imposed on our understanding. However, they stated:

"[W]hile certain methodologies tend to be associated with certain knowledge interest, we don't see a conflict in using statistical methods toward emancipatory ends, as long as it forms part of a cycle of ongoing critical reflection" (p. 28).

[Here, again, the authors place action (participatory) research as a paradigm distinguished from qualitative or qualitative methodology, while slightly emphasizing their position in the emancipatory stream. HOWEVER, when participants utilize or emulate certain methods, which are considered dehumanizing, would it be considered emancipatory? The positionality of participants as insiders would make a difference, while outside researchers conduct surveys, for instance...But I am not quite sure right now.]

3. The continuum of positionality in action research (29-48)

The authors explore different implications of positionality between insiders and outsiders. Here PAR is defined as either reciprocal collaboration or outsider(s) collaborating with insider(s). They assert that although reciprocal collaboration is ideal, many different positinalities are possible and valuable as long as researchers are aware of them and honest about them. The issue of positionalities is also important to the authors because it affects the criteria for quality or trustworthiness of the study they conduct.

4. Quality criteria for action research (49-68)
The authors reject validity (QUAN) and trustworthiness (QUAL/naturalistic researchers) as criteria for action research because the terms do not acknowledge action-oriented outcomes. Instead, they propose five validity criteria which are associated with the goals of action research.

Goal1: the generation of new knowledge-->dialogic and process validity
Goal2: the achievement of action-oriented outcomes-->outcome validity
Goal3: the education of both researcher and participants-->catalytic validity
Goal4: Results that are relevant tot eh local setting-->Democratic validity
Goal5: A sound and appropriate research methodology-->process validity

Process validity: the manner in which research is conducted, including triangulation
Outcome validity: whether action occurs [What is action? In many emancipatory participatory research, action may be intrinsic and they may lack agency to implement the research results but their research has implications of policy change. Thus, actions that may be qualified in more conventional action research may not be appropriate here.]
Catalytic validity: does research lead its participants and researchers to know the reality and transform it? This validity has to do with transformative potential.
Democratic validity: is the research done in collaboration with all parties? In particular, it draws on locality (Cunningham, 1983): does problems emerge from a local context and the solutions are appropriate to that context?
Dialogic validity: peer review.

[I WONDER whether it is appropriate to apply these criteria to both business-oriented and emancipatory action research.]

Reason and Bradbury (2001, Handbook of action research) defined action research as "an emerging, evolutionary and educational process of engaging with self, persons and communities that needs to be sustained for a significant period of time" (p. 12, as cited p. 58).

In short, the authors depart from current QUAN and QUAL validity criteria for action research.

About GENERALIZATION.
The authors take on Robert Stake's (1986) position on naturalistic generalization to illustrate their own. He explained naturalistic generalizations as a way of leading audiences to vicarious experience and helping them think of their own problems in a new way:

A person would be described as an individual, with uniqueness not just in deviance scores, but as a key to understanding the interactions. A reader senses the experience of teamwork in this particular situation. It is a unique situation in some respects, but ordinary in other respects. Readers recognize similarities with situations of their own. Perhaps they are stimulated to think of old problems in a new way (p.99)

In writing dissertation, the authors emphasize that students clarify the evolution, documenting the decisions made. They acknowledge that in naturalistic inquiry, methodologies evolve, yet it should be documented. Secondly, they stress that the students think through their multiple roles in this research as researcher, as outsider, as facilitator, etc.


////
Brown & Tandon
doi: 10.1177/002188638301900306 Journal of Applied Behavioral Science September 1983 vol. 19 no. 3 277-294

Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage.

Cunningham, J. B. (1983). Gathering data in a changing organization. Human relations, 36 (5), 403-420

Stake, R. (1986). An evolutionary view of educational improvement. In E.R. House (Ed.), New directions in educational evaluation (pp. 89-102). London: Falmer.