Action, Research, Participation

 The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative inquiry and practice. Peter Reason, & Hilary Bradbury, (Eds.). Second Edition, 2008. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage.

This is a completely rewritten text from the first edition. 49 new chapters in all across 720 pages, a very full statement of where action research is at the moment. I note Kay Yang's helpful summary of key chapters, and other related reading about action research at http://researchthatmatters.blogspot.com/2010/11/sage-handbook-of-action-research.html. I focus on some thoughts for student researchers. Action research is, it declares, an orientation rather than a 'method'. The orientation is to creatively strive for improvement through rigorous use of any appropriate method. 1st person projects involve personal reflection-action-reflection cycles, 2nd person involves others, whilst 3rd person projects 'do it' to others. Ideally, aspects of all three are present: the word 'participatory' occurs frequently, that is, action research best describes a group working together. Terms like 'critical' and 'emancipatory' are often used: these show AR to be critical of power structures and status quo which keeps traditional unemancipated practice 'frozen' and unchangeable. Arrangements which benefit those in power are most difficult to change. I use this term 'frozen' to bring discussion back to Kurt Lewin, the originator of action research. Having escaped from Nazi hegemony, he was greatly interested in how people are designated 'other' and how research can assist them. He was especially interested in how organisations can improve themselves. He distinguished between task and process, focusing on the whole system to make fundamental changes. This required general participation, seeking to win hearts and minds. Lewin became interested in group dynamics, that is, how the individual is affected by the group. Self-reflection, examining our assumptions and presuppositions, is an essential ingredient. Reflective selves within a team.

AR in educational assignments is often caricatured as 'plan an intervention, carry it out, and evaluate it'. First, where is the vision of the whole organisation (be it the school or the whole education service)? What are the views of all involved, including the pupils? Where is the participation?  Second, how will this intervention 'improve' things? What is mean by improve? Where is the critical slant and emancipation? Will it free the system from unfairness? How will it critique power and democratise the activity? Thirdly, does it encourage a broader vision about the community  and global relationships? Fourthly, does it ask interesting questions of the change process that draws from interdisciplinary literature? One example is how 'the theatre of the oppressed' in Bangladesh drew on the work of Paulo Freire and Augusto Boal in engaging street cleaners with emancipating role playing.

It is clear from this collection of projects that AR is ethics in practice (chap. 13 explores this). It is described as activist research - research implying that wrongs are righted. It has elements of the spiritual - Peter Reason and others point to Buddhist parallels, and it is generally involved with generating better, more fulfilling knowledge. It is about transformation, vision and the transpersonal. Several writers comment that action research is the way you live your whole life, not just a methodological choice for a short-term project. In a sense then, understanding AR helps to understand research itself holistically: are multiple perspectives fairly drawn on? Does the research create a better world? Is it just? Is it liberating? Does it challenge readers to see the world differently?