Action Research

Legitimizing tussle between knowledge & action

Introduction
What is knowledge, where is it located, and the role of self in knowledge-production are issues
not confined to abstract and theoretical discourse alone. When Marx is quoted as chastising
thinkers by saying philosophers wanted to understand the world, but we shall change the world,
an impression is created that the distinction between knowledge/understanding and action for
change were a modern phenomenon. Aristotle too was concerned with practice, especially in
connection with the notion of virtue and justice.

The present inquiry does not aim at theoretical knowledge like the others… we must
examine the nature of actions, namely how we ought to do them..(Nichomachean Ethics.
Book II, section 2 1)

History of research is replete with the tussle between knowledge production, period, and
knowledge for change. Two arenas of research perhaps bring this tussle into greater light than
others areas of research – these being qualitative research, and health research. Qualitative
research has intensely engaged with the ideas of reality as objectively given and as socially
constructed; and the role of researcher in producing knowledge and the reliability and validity of
knowledge. The issue of generalization is also a thorny issue and challenges the researcher to
provide coherent argument for any claim on generalizing the findings of the study. For example,
if the findings of an action research show a pathway to empowerment, on what basis can that
pathway be confidently claimed as valid for all other sites? 2

One of the difficulties in understanding the issues surrounding generalization is that the
distinctions between empirical and theoretical generalization are not universally or
consistently applied. 3

The Approach of Action Research

The intellectual roots for the conceptual birth of action research can be traced back to the
ideas of John Dewey (1916) and that of Collier (1945) who further had developed his own very
practical approach to action research (Neilsen, 2006). According to Neilsen, (2006), Collier also
appears to be the first person to have coined the term, ‘action research,’ and his work more
exclusively focused on democratic collaboration in the treatment of important social issues
However, according to Bargal (2006), the idea of action research and social change was the later
conceptualized by Kurt Lewin (1947). Bargal (2006) further provides a comparison of the
principles that form the underlying framework of Lewin’s approach to action research with that
of Collier’s. He adds that like Lewin, Collier also had deep ideological commitment as well as
practical commitment to the idea of democracy. However, Collier in fact did not offer a theory of
social change (social psychological or otherwise). According to Bargal (2006), Lewin’s ‘field
theory and its meta-theoretical principles,’ highlighted a deep commitment to the idea of
democracy and his three stage theory of social change. Embarking from Lewin’s notion about
the difference between knowledge created through academic research and knowledge created for
utilization in practice, new epistemological constructs have developed. Schon’s (1983)
‘reflection in action’ and Argyris’s (1993) ‘actionable knowledge’ are direct successors of
Lewin’s paradigm of action research (Bargal, 2006).
Action research is therefore, focused on addressing issues through inquiry into human
problems in the real context. It is often called applied research as it involves the community at all
stages. Community-based action research focuses on methods and techniques of inquiry that take
into account people’s history, culture, practices, and emotional lives. According to Stringer
(1999), action research is “a collaborative approach to inquiry or investigation that provides
people with the means to take systematic action to resolve specific problems” (p.17).
Furthermore, Stringer (1999) elaborates that action research favors consensual and participatory
procedures that enable people to investigate their problems and issues systematically in order to
devise plans to deal with the problems in real situations. Hence, action research has been
described as an informal, qualitative, formative, subjective, interpretive, reflective and
experiential model of inquiry in which all individuals involved in the study are knowing and
contributing participants (Hopkins, 1993).
Action research is sometimes characterized as the combination of theory and practice or
the methodology which links theory and practice, connecting thinking and doing and thereby
achieving both practical and research objectives (Susman, 1983). According to Elliott’s (1995),
action research is intended to be the reflective counterpart of practical diagnosis. Elliot’s model
of action research emphasizes constant evolution and redefinition of the original goal through a
series of exploration in recurring cycles, including analysis, action and reflection weaved into the
cyclic processes. In addition, Schon (1983) describes the use of reflection to generate models
called ‘reflection-in-action’ which are used to re-frame a problem, then experiments are
performed to bring about outcomes which are subjected to further analysis. Schon's model of
reflection-in-action compliments the investigative nature of action research which frames means
and ends interdependently and recognizes that there is little or no separation of research from
practice, little or no separation of knowing and doing (Schon, 1983).
Gerald Susman (1983) cited in O’Brien (1998) presents an ‘action research model’
distinguishing five phases to be conducted within each research cycle (Figure 1). Initially, a
problem is identified and data is collected for a more detailed diagnosis. This is followed by a
collective hypothesis of several possible solutions, from which a single plan of action emerges
and is implemented. Data on the results of the intervention are collected and analyzed and the
findings are interpreted in light of how successful the action has been. At this point, the problem
is re-assessed and the process begins another cycle. This process continues until the problem is
resolved.
Action research is best understood not a methodology or a set of techniques, but as an
orientation to inquiry; a move to re-vision our understanding of the nature of human knowledge,
splitting apart theory and practice, everyday experiences and academic knowledge (Reason,
2003). In other words, action research is a practice for the systematic development of knowing
and knowledge. It has different purposes, is based in different relationships, it has different ways
of conceiving knowledge and its relation to practice. Action research typically involves creating
spaces in which participants engage together in cycles of action and critical reflection. This
reflects Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) cited in Koshy (2005) proposed model of ‘action
research spiral’ highlighting the cyclical nature of the typical action research process having four
steps; plan, act, observe and reflect.
REFERENCES

Anderson, M. L. (1989). Research in classroom: The study of teachers, teaching and instruction.
New York: Routledge Falmer.

Bargal, D. (2006). Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewin’s paradigm on action
research: Towards the 60th anniversary of Lewin’s ‘Action research and minority
problems (1946).’ Action Research 4(4), pp. 367-388.

Elliott, J. (1995). Action research for educational change. Phildelphia: Open University Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Hannan, C. (2008). Empowerment of women: The global perspective. Paper presented at the
International Conference on ‘Empowering Professional Women in the Maritime World,’
World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden, 2-4 April, 2008.

Hopkins, D. (1993). A teacher's guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Open University

Press.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.).
Geelong: Deakin University.

Koshy, V. (2005). Action research for improving practice: A practical guide. New Dehli: Paul
Chapman Publishing.

Neilsen, E. H. (2006). But let us not forget John Collier: Commentary on David Bargal’s
‘Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewin’s paradigm on action research.’
Action Research 4(4), pp. 389-399.

O’Brien, R. (1998). An overview of the methodological approach of action research. Retrieved

on April 04, 2009 from http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html

Page, N. & Czuba, C. E. (1999). Empowerment: What is it? Journal of Extension, 37(5).
Retrieved on April, 20 2009 from http://www.joe.org

Pillai, J. K. (1995). Women and empowerment. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.

1
See www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/Project/digitexts/aristotlre/niomachean_ethics/bo
2
WEMC-AKU action research in two urban sites, after going through four common steps, reveal a common
outcome, but the generalizability of this process is yet to be argued for with a group of qualitative researchers. It is
interesting to note that groups more inclined to action would be far more accepting of the validity of the process than
perhaps pure researchers. However, this issue is yet to be debated with the qualitative research group in AKU.
3
Jane Ritchie and Jane Lewis, ed, Qualitative REsaerch Practice. A Guide for Social Science Students and
Researchers. .Chapter 10. Generalizing from Qualitative Research. Page 264 SAGE Publications. London.
Thousand Oaks. New Delhi First printed 2003.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a
world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook for
action research: Participative inquiry and practice, (pp. 1-14). London: Sage
Publications.

Reason, P. (2003). Doing co-operative inquiry. In J. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A

practical guide to methods. London: Sage Publications.

Reason, P. & McArdle, K. L. (2005). Action research and organizational development. In T. C.

Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of organizational development. London: Sage Publications.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professional think in action. New York:
Basic Books.

Stringer, E. (1999). Action research. (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Susman, G. (1983). Action research: A socio-technical system perspective. In G. Morgan, (Ed.),

Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 95-113). Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.