A Review of the

Nature of Action Research

February 2003

Action Res
th
ea
l
able Hea

rch Progra

SH A R P
ain

t mm
Sus e
CCL Associates Ltd, health development and research & St Martin’s College, Centre
for Health Research & Practice Development

Sandy Whitelaw, Senior Lecturer, Health Studies

Alan Beattie, Professor of Health Promotion
Ruth Balogh, Director, Centre for Health Research &
Practice Development
Jonathan Watson, CCL Associates Ltd and
Professor in Health & Public Policy, University of Nottingham

© Crown Copyright 2003

The views of this review, are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the
Welsh Assembly.
Summary of the literature review
Introduction
The overall purpose of the review was to provide evidence to underpin the development of an
action research resource for the Health Promotion Division of the Welsh Assembly
Government. The review was asked to particularly explore action research in terms of theory,
method and application in health and community contexts in order to:

• identify the key features associated with action research;

• describe the range of practical methods;
• consider the ethical challenges;
• explore the application of action research methods to community health activities.

A colleague working on one of the projects funded by the Sustainable Health Action Research
Programme (SHARP) in Wales has described action research in community settings as ‘evolving
and dynamic’ and requiring a ‘blend of patience, passion and rigour’. Whilst it is difficult to
pin down this interpersonal and emotional aspect of action research from published and
peer-reviewed literature, the review does explore action research in terms of theory, method
and application against a backdrop of context and values.

Key findings
The review describes action research –in relation to for example, definitions, approaches and
methods. It also stresses both the potentially varied nature of practice and the existence of a
range of values that informs the design and execution of action research projects. This
summary has to be selective in highlighting some key aspects of the literature.

1. Broad nature of the literature

The field is built upon a relatively extensive and contested philosophical base. The literature
contains material that reflects this varied nature and it can be understood in relation to the
following dimensions:

(i) an interplay between pragmatic and philosophical/conceptual levels. Central

to the notion of a variety of analysis, is the idea that approaches to research and
evaluation can be considered at different levels. In broad terms, there firstly exists a
pragmatic level that refers to the use of techniques and tools and the overall planning
requirements of a project. Secondly, there is a general position that addresses the issues
of how research may be philosophically and conceptually construed.

(ii) an interplay between affirmative and critical perspectives. The majority of

action research literature comes from a broadly ‘critical’ value base for example, critical of
existing social arrangements, critical of conventional notions of truth and critical of
traditional research and evaluation methodologies. Perhaps paradoxically, this critical
orientation is supported by a relatively high degree of consensus within the field leading
to a generally affirmative (and sometimes uncritical?) portrayal of the potential 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’.

2. Describing action research

Achieving some broad definition of action research is the first concern and this is undertaken
at various points in the review. In summary, 3 broad ‘types’ of action research can be identified
in the literature - Type 1 ‘Technical Scientific & Positivist Action Research’, Type 2 ‘Mutual-
Collaborative & Interpretivist Action Research’ and Type 3 ‘Critical and emancipatory action
research’.

Beyond these definitional concerns, efforts have been made to describe more practical
features of the process. This can relate to:

(i) understanding the contexts in which action research is undertaken

(ii) clarifying the steps involved in defining the focus of the research
(iii) establishing the necessary roles and skills; key themes are in relation to
manageability, informality and philosophy
(iv) deploying appropriate methods in action research.

On the one hand, this last point suggests a liberal view that it is inappropriate to associate
particular methods to action research, preferring a more open and flexible use of a range of
potential methods. Alternatively, others hold a more principled position, where fixed and
unequivocal associations between disciplines and/or form of activities and related research
paradigms and methods are adopted.

3. The issue of participation

Each action research project is seen as being unique in terms of the coalition of people that
come together around it. Some of these people might be marginal actors, coming in and out
of the project at different stages e.g. funders or a particular ‘gatekeeper’. Others will be more
central to the life of a project e.g. the project manager or action researcher. However, from
the literature a common set of factors can be identified that most projects need to deal with
and which will have an impact on deciding who should be involved and when (see below).
Both the positive and negative aspects need to be managed.

II
 Perceived positive aspects Perceived negative aspects

Request study Impose the project

Obtain permission to conduct study Oppose the project
Authorise access to staff Do not participate, e.g. do not impart
Link different agendas e.g. managerial information, do not complete diaries
and professional agendas or viewpoints Do not participate, resulting in changes
Initiate or undertake the practice that is with low significance
the focus of change Dominate project
Provide skills relevant to the proposed Refuse to allow shifts in power
change
Provide resources: funding, materials,
time, staff
Sustain change: alteration of
organisation structure and policy to
accommodate innovations, provision of
resources, funding, personnel

4. Ethical issues in action research

The approach in general and the specific issues that are raised by the participation of many
players highlights a range of ethical issues. Two major positions are identified in the literature:

• action research raises no additional or different ethical challenges to those raised by

‘traditional’ research;
• that action research is either in itself more ethical or more cautiously is undertaken on
stronger ethical grounds than other less participatory forms of research.

Many have begun to provide a more thorough analysis of the ethical implications of activities
associated with action research. A range of particular features are identified as requiring
attention:

• Achieving informed consent;

• Maintaining confidentiality and anonymity;
• Handling relationships and ensuring emancipatory, democratic or ‘fair’ outcomes.

5. Action research and community health initiatives

Action research has emerged within several specific fields; in particular, education, nursing,
social work and community development for health. Some have suggested that the particular
features of each of these arenas may lead to different types of action research. But the review
suggests that the predominant tendency in each of these areas is still one of eclecticism. That
is, it would be wrong to imply that innovative action research only occurs in circumstances that
are considered ‘conducive’ and that all action research in these circumstances is innovative.

The predominant view has been that there is a natural affinity between ‘community’,
‘community development for health’ and ‘action research’ and a long practical history exists.
Indeed, Lewin’s original work was concerned with deploying action research to improve race
relations and addressing economic and social discrimination against minority groups. The
review found that whilst it may not always necessarily be the case, there potentially exists a

III
high degree of congruence between the spirit of particular elements and expressions of the
respective movements. The movements are clearly broad, complex and diverse though for
summary purposes a number of key common features can be established in relation to:

• initial focus;
• founding perspectives;
• developmental processes;
• relationships;
• expected outcomes.

In more specific terms, community development for health and action research come together
in two particular areas:

(i) the assessment of health needs whereby more open, equitable and varied forms of
research act as a basis of identifying priorities that subsequently leads to action;
(ii) evaluation wherein evaluative research attempts to access more sensitive and
appropriate data that reflect the indicators defined as significant by the community.

A critical, value driven and emancipatory ethic tends to inform this work where research and
researchers act to challenge and change existing circumstances or patterns of provision,
facilitate capacity building in the community and act as an advocate for their concerns. Beyond
these positive aspirations a range of critical concerns that parallel those identified earlier
within the general action research literature have been raised. These are summarised below:

• there need not be a binding affinity between community health and action research
and all community based research topics need not be pursued within an action research
approach; other forms of research may generate more appropriate or powerful data
and insights;
• in a related sense, community development for health spans a diverse range of
founding activities with differing motives and expectations and many of these may not
necessarily be conducive to action research ;
• as a result of initially restricted parameters or superficial political education and
analysis, some community based action research can lead to a localised and politically
obscured understanding of the dynamics of circumstances;
• as such, action research may not necessarily be the only appropriate or most effective
way of practically bringing about change or dealing with poverty;
• the difficulty of professionals and researchers truly transferring power;
• the potential to over-estimate the potential that the community has to contribute to an
active action research process [in relation to time, energy, skill, ability];
• the difficulties of gaining community representation and consensus and the potential to
overestimate the prospect of achieving any action or action that satisfies a significant
proportion of the community.

Conclusions
A simple one-dimensional and descriptive account of action research neglects a host of (at
least) equally significant issues that always underpin research activities and processes and it is
clear that action research cannot simply be seen as a technical exercise. These issues include,
the significance of research values, the existence of differentiated types of action research
practice (and the associated question of whether there exists a hierarchy of preference) and
subsequently the challenge of having to match research questions to the most appropriate
approach or methodology. This wider view also raises a number of critical issues associated
with the development of action research that require consideration.

IV
Contents
Summary I

1. Introduction 3

1.1 Aims of the review 3

2. Background 4

2.1 Methods and data sources 4

2.2 The broad nature of the literature 4

3. The origins of action research 6

4. A descriptive base for action research 8

4.1 A democratic/participative ethic 9

4.2 Action research in social situations, the bridging of the 12
theory-practice gap and an educative motive
4.3 Action research as bringing about sustainable change 14
via cyclical processes
4.4 The notion of action research as ‘rapid’ 17

5. Action research values and typologies 18

5.1 The broad values that define action research 18

5.2 Initial efforts at defining typologies 20
5.3 Hart and Bond’s typology 23

6. Action research methodology 27

6.1 A philosophical base for action research 27

6.2 Action research in different organisational contexts 29
6.3 Defining the focus of action research and locating this 31
in different stages of a wider research course of action
6.4 Core skills and methods for action research 34
6.5 Managing the practical nature of the research process 35
6.6 Specific methods in action research 35
6.7 Views of formality in action research 37
6.8 Data analysis 38

7. Validity in action research 40

1
8. Ethical issues in action research 43

8.1 Achieving informed consent. 43

8.2 Maintaining confidentiality and anonymity 44
8.3 Handling relationships and ensuring emancipatory, 45
democratic or ‘fair’ outcomes

9. Action research and ‘community’ health initiatives 48

10. A form of conclusion 51

11. Bibliography 54

Tables

Table 1: A summary of the elements used by Beattie 19

(1991) in his cross cutting analysis
Table 2: Elements of various descriptive action research typologies 21
Table 3: Hart and Bond (1995) An action research typology 24,25,26
Table 4: Types of public health research (devised for the 34
report by Whitelaw, 2001)

Figures

Figure 1: Definitions of action research 8

Figure 2: Forms of participation in action research 10
Figure 3: Factors affecting implementation of research findings 30
Figure 4: Problem definition checklist 18

Appendices

Appendix 1: Pivotal factors in various aspects of action research 66

Appendix 2: Guidelines for assessing action research projects 69
Appendix 3: Guidelines and Categories for Classifying 78
Participatory Research Projects in Health Promotion

2
1 Introduction
The overall purpose of this review was to provide evidence to underpin the development
of an action research resource for the Health Promotion Division (HPD) of the Welsh
Assembly Government. Although this resource is intended as a generic action research
resource, it was motivated by the experience of people running action research projects
as part of the Assembly’s ‘Sustainable Health Action Research Programme’.

A colleague working on an action research project in Wales has described action research
‘especially in community settings as evolving and dynamic and depends on blending
patience, passion and rigour. Put together, these are very powerful’.

This is not a sentiment that is easily picked up in published and peer-reviewed literature.
So, while this review is unashamedly an academic piece of work providing a broad
overview of the fundamental nature and basis of action research, some pointers towards
more practical implications are included and these are developed further in the
associated resource published by HPD.

1.1 Aims of the review

1. To identify the origins of action research as a means of understanding variation in the

contemporary literature.
2. To define, compare and contrast the distinguishing bases of action research.
3. To develop a review of the key features associated with action research.
4. To describe the range of practical methods associated with action research.
5. To consider the ethical challenges associated with action research.
6. To consider the specific application of action research methodologies to community
health initiatives.

3
2 Background
2.1 Methods and data sources

Using a broad search strategy that sought to pool a range of related literature bases
(using the search terms action research; action enquiry; participatory research;
practitioner research; solution and utilisation focused research; rapid action research;
rapid action response; evaluation and health needs assessment), the review sought to
develop a ‘systematic and interpretative’ analysis of the field (Waterman et al, 2001; 5).
Searches were made on a range of electronic databases including: MEDLINE, CINAHL,
ESRC: Research Guide to the Social Sciences, ASSIAnet, ERIC/AE Full Text Internet Library,
IBSS Online identifying literature from a range of specific journals and disciplinary sources
(e.g. the Journal of Advanced Nursing, Health Promotion International and a special
edition of the International Journal of Drug Policy on action research)

A range of relevant web sites were also accessed;

ARNet Action Research Network http://www.asri.edu/cfsp

Action Enquiry Network http://www.actionscience.com/
Action Research on the Net http://www.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow/
Action Research at Bath University http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/
Participatory Action Research Sites http://www.goshen.edu/soan/soan96p.htm
Action Research Resources at Southern Cross University, Australia
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arhome.html
Action Research Electronic Reader at University of Sydney, Australia
http://www.behs.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow/reader

Given the time constraints, significant use was made of a number of key contemporary
handbooks and secondary meta-reviews; in particular, Hart E. and Bond M. (1995) Action
Research for Health and Social Care: a guide to practice Open University Press, Milton
Keynes; McNiff J., Lomax P. & Whitehead J. (1996) You and Your Action Research Project
Routledge, London; Reason P. & Bradbury H. (eds.) Action Research: participative enquiry
& practice Sage, London; Waterman H., Tillen D. Dickson R. & de Koning K. (2001) Action
research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment Health Technology Assessment
Vol. 5. No. 23; Winter R. & Munn-Giddings C. (2001) A Handbook for Action Research in
health and Social Care Routledge, London and Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) The Action
Research Planner Deakin University Press, Victoria.

2.2 The broad nature of the literature

Given that the review is aimed at providing a base upon which a field-oriented resource
will be developed, much of the material will deal with the pragmatic task of ‘doing’
action research. However, the field has clearly been built upon a relatively extensive and
contested philosophical base and these debates will form an important complement to
the practical focus in the resource. The literature contains material that reflects this
varied nature and the review will seek to consider each of these elements in a balanced
way. This variety can be understood in relation to the following dimensions:

4
(i) an interplay between pragmatic and philosophical/conceptual levels. Central
to the notion of a variety of analysis, Smith (1975) suggests that approaches to research
and evaluation can be considered at different levels; namely, technical, operational,
discipline and paradigm. In broad terms, there firstly exists a pragmatic level that refers
to the use of techniques and tools and the overall planning requirements of a project. As
might be expected, a significant amount of literature describes these practical and
functional elements (for example, McNiff, 1996; Winter & Munn-Giddings, 2001 section III;
Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Elliot, 1991 chapter 6; Fuller and Petch, 1995) chapters 3, 4 &
5). Secondly, in relation to Smith’s levels, there is a general position that addresses the
issues of how research may be philosophically and conceptually construed (Balogh, 1993).
Significantly, a range of critical philosophical and conceptual perspectives have
underpinned both the general promotion of the methodology and the specific nature of
action research activities (Kemmis, 2001; Dadds & Hart, 2001).

(ii) an interplay between affirmative and critical perspectives. The majority of

action research literature comes from a broadly ‘critical’ value base [for example, critical
of existing social arrangements, critical of conventional notions of truth and critical of
traditional research and evaluation methodologies (Reason & Bradbury, 2001a; Lincoln,
2001; Ledwith, 2001)]. Perhaps paradoxically, this critical orientation is supported by a
relatively high degree of consensus within the field leading to a generally affirmative
(and sometimes uncritical?) portrayal of the potential of action research. On the other
hand, the action research tradition is distinctive in allowing – even encouraging –
researchers to report and reflect upon failures and difficulties encountered in the action
research process. The fallibilist approach provides helpful guidance to the development of
practice that extends beyond that which is simply based on affirmative and circular
perspectives (Blackburn, 2000; Swepson, 1998; Webb, 1996).

(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
(Macaulay et al, 1999; Holter and Schwartz-Barcott, 1993). 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. In relation to a preferred
methodology (i.e. values, data, methods and application) there is also a tendency to have
a ‘fixed’ view of the inter-relationship between various elements of the action research
process, where typically, action research will be based on a critical value base, will have an
expansive expectation of outcome, will have a high level of participation and will use
qualitative data within a case study methodology. Alternatively, others (e.g. Waterman et
al, 2001; Quinn Patton, 1990) 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’ (for example, Parry et al, 2001;
Baum, 1996; Wilkinson et al, 1997).

5
3. The origins of action research
Action research, as we currently understand it, evolved from a range of sources. Whilst
Reason and Bradbury (2001a) offer the warning that, ‘we doubt if it is possible to provide
one coherent history of action research’ (Reason and Bradbury, 2001; 3), most histories of
the field tend to start with the view that action research originated out of innovative
work within The Group Dynamics movement in social psychology in the 1940’s; and in
particular by Kurt Lewin (Hart & Bond, 1995; Carr & Kemmis, 1986).

Lewin envisaged a form of research that included a number of innovative elements. First,
he believed that social science should be directly interested and involved in the pressing
social problems of the day. Second, he saw the need to ‘include practitioners from the
real social world in all phases of inquiry’ (McKernan, 1991; 10) in joint endeavour that
encompassed three essential elements: Action, Research and Teaching. Finally, he
conceptualised the process of research as, ‘proceeding in a spiral of steps, each of which is
composed of planning, action and the evaluation of the result of action’ (Kemmis and
McTaggart 1990; 8). In the 1950’s and 60’s this model of action research was developed at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Tavistock Institute and frequently
expressed in organisational and workplace research (McKernan, 1991; 10). Masters (2000)
also identifies a range of contributory ‘movements’ including, ‘The Science in Education
Movement’, the ‘experimentalist and progressive educational’ work of John Dewey, the
‘Reconstructionist Curriculum Development Activity’ and the ‘teacher-researcher’
movement.

However, some have suggested that the prominence of Lewin (and related work) in the
writing of the history of action research has subsequently led to an unnecessarily skewed
vision of its nature. In particular, it is argued that in adopting an external expert role and
using quantitative experimental research designs with relatively low levels of research
participation, this work maintained many of the functional and elitist values associated
with ‘traditional’ research (Swepson, 1998; McKernan, 1991). Masters also argues that the
preservation of a division between science and practice in the science education
movement led to professional researchers being, ‘insulated from the teaching ranks’
(Masters, 2000; 4), teachers, ‘prevented from studying problems in the field’ (Masters,
2000; 4) and ultimately a stalling of early progress made in the name of action research.

To break free of this narrow representation, some have proposed an alternative history
(Masters, 2000; Reason and Bradbury, 2001) identifying other examples of ‘action
research’ (prior to Lewin) undertaken in a fundamentally different spirit. For example,
McTaggart (1992; 2) identifies Gstettner and Altricher’s account of work with prostitutes
in Vienna in 1913 which combined research with group participation and community
development work and McKernan (1991; 8) contends that forms of action research were
being pursued by social reformists, such as Collier, Lippitt and Radke in the early 1940’s.
More importantly, others have attempted to isolate a wider range of more critical
influences that have shaped action research both as an idea and as practice. Reason and
Bradbury argue, ‘while we are clearly indebted to this tradition [Lewin’s], there are others
which deserve acknowledgement’ (Reason and Bradbury, 2001; 3) and they go on to
identify ‘diverse origins’, from a variety of sources, including the following:

6
• at the level of research philosophy, a critique of the formality, superficiality and
invalidity of positivist science and ‘scientism’ (Springett, 2001);

• politically, the Marxist notion of praxis or deliberately acting on socio-political

conditions with a view to bringing about substantial change (Grundy, 1987);

• liberating and transformative change through critical pedagogy based on class, gender,
race analyses (Maguire, 2001; Bell, 2001);

• at the level of ethos, existential and humanist themes (Rowan, 2001);

• a range of theoretical bases: pragmatic philosophy (Levin and Greenwood, 2001),

humanist psychology (Heron and Reason, 2001), systems theory (Flood, 2001);

• broad paradigms such as social constructionism and postmodernism (Lincoln, 2001);

• specific disciplinary areas of education (Stenhouse, 1975 and Elliot, 1991), community
development (Lees and Smith, 1975), social work (Childs, 2001; Fuller & Petch, 1995) and
nursing (Hart and Bond, 1995).

7
4. A descriptive base for action research
These varied roots clearly pose difficulties in arriving at clear-cut characterisations of
‘action research’ and this is regularly alluded to in the literature. Building on the
historical themes outlined above, Reason & Bradbury (2001) for example note that in
practical terms,

‘the action research family includes a whole range of approaches and practices, each
grounded in different traditions, in different philosophical and psychological
assumptions, pursuing different political commitments’ (Reason & Bradbury; 2001; xxiv)

However, there are a number of recurrent features within the host of comprehensive
definitions contained in the literature and action research is variously defined as,

Figure 1: Definitions of action research

‘problem–focused, context specific, and refined, and its general application

participative, (involving) a change
intervention geared to improvement,
and a process based on a continuous
interaction between research, action,
reflection and evaluation’ (Hart, 1996;
454)
‘a period of inquiry, which describes,
interprets and explains social situations
while executing a change intervention
aimed at improvement and
involvement. It is problem-focused,
context-specific and future-oriented.
Action research is a group activity with
an explicit critical value basis and is
founded on a partnership between
action researchers and participants, all
of whom are involved in the change
process. The participatory process is
educative and empowering, involving
a dynamic approach in which problem
identification, planning, action and
evaluation are interlinked. Knowledge
may be advanced through reflection
and research. Theory may be generated
explored through the cycles of the
action research process’ (Waterman,
2001; 11)
‘incorporat(ing) three important
elements: its participatory character;
its democratic impulse; and its
simultaneous contribution to social
science and social change’ (Meyer,
2000; 178)
‘a participatory, democratic process
concerned with developing practical
knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile
human purposes, grounded in a
participatory world view. 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 generally the
flourishing of individual persons and
their communities’ (Reason and
Bradbury, 2001; 1)
Cont...

8
 ‘a process which alternates
continuously between inquiry and
action, between practice and innovative
thinking – a developmental spiral of
practical decision-making and evaluative
reflection…. providing mutual support
within a developmental process’ (Winter
and Munn-Giddings, 2001; 5)
collaboration’ (Hart and Bond, 1995;
37)
‘a systemic inquiry that is collective,
collaborative, self-reflective, critical
and undertaken by participants in the
inquiry’ (McCutcheon and Jurg, 1990;
148)

‘it has an educative base; it deals with ‘a form of collective self-reflective

individuals as members in groups; it is
problem focused; it involves a change
intervention; it aims at improvement
and involvement; it involves cyclical
processes; it is founded on
inquiry undertaken by participants in
social situations in order to improve the
rationality and justice of their own
social or educational practices’ (Kemmis
and McTaggart, 1990; 5)

This inclusive listing of a set of normative features associated with action research is
common in the literature and reflects empirical accounts of the action research process.
On closer examination, these features contain a degree of diversity at various levels
including, core philosophical assumptions, motivations, expectations and practices. This
diversity will be examined throughout the review. The next task is to provide some
elaboration of these key features and begin to identify the ambiguities contained within
the surface meanings.

4.1 A democratic/participative ethic

The notion that action research should actively engage to a significantly greater degree
those who, within the human sciences, would traditionally have been considered passive
research ‘subjects’ features strongly in the literature; Waterman et al (2001; 11-12) for
example suggest that this egalitarian principle is a ‘fundamental’ feature. Specifically,
Reason (1994) and Rowan (2001; 122) describe a form of ‘participative’ action research
rooted in humanistic psychology and suggest that such work unlocks potential associated
with a range of features: the preference for drawing upon the potential of active
(volunteering) individuals; the centrality of ‘authentic’ direct experience and the
possibility of political change through the bringing together of individual forces into a
collective force.

Beyond this general aspiration, many have recognised that this principle can be expressed
to different degrees and variously go on to recognise hierarchies or ‘ladders’ of research
participation (for example, Wadsworth, 2001; Beresford, 1992; Burns et al, 1994). In more
detail, Cornwall (1996) lists 6 forms of participation in action research:

9
Figure 2: Forms of participation in action research

co-option – where token outside researchers to determine

representatives are chosen but have no
real input or power in the research
process; compliance – where outsiders
decide the research agenda and direct
the process, with tasks assigned to
participants with incentives by the
researchers; consultation – where local
opinions are asked for but outside
researchers conduct the work and decide
on a course of action; co-operation –
where local people work together with
priorities, with responsibility remaining
with outsiders for directing the process;
co-learning – where local people and
outsiders share their knowledge, to
create new understanding and work
together to form action plans, with
outsider facilitation; collective action –
where local people set their own
agenda and mobilise to carry it out in
the absence of outside initiators and
facilitators

These generalized ‘scales’ have been complemented by seeing participation as occurring

at different levels within a system, particularly articulating the relationship between
‘individual’ and ‘organisational’ participation; Smithies and Webster (1998; 250-253) cite
the notion of an ‘onion’ model with layers linking:

• isolated individuals;
• community development and participation;
• organisational development and participation.

The implicit (and often explicit) preference suggested within the literature is for research
work to be undertaken with as high degree of participation as possible. In the context of
community health research, Burns et al (1994) for example equate the various levels of
participation with specific political and ethical consequences:

‘non-participation’ is seen as a form of ‘citizen hype’ and the symbolic use of

community involvement to attract investment; ‘cynical consultation’ where
decisions are already made independent of the research input and participation
only serves to make legitimate these prior decisions; ‘citizen participation’ where
informing and consulting occurs via decentralized decision making and ‘citizen
control’ where the community is inherently involved in both the construction of
research questions and their subsequent answering

These latter positions and the tendency towards the ‘democratisation’ of research is
perceived to require participants to be seen as equals in the research process, with
researchers working as facilitators of change.

A range of benefits are perceived to derive from research approaches with high levels of
participation; namely that: (i) most conservatively, an ‘instrumental’ position is offered

10
where early participation is perceived to be supportive of the ultimate implementation of
whatever is decided [what Waterman et al, (2001; 13) see as ‘participation as a technique
to encourage change’]; (ii) more ambitiously, an ‘ethical’ approach offers the potential
for an inclusive and comprehensive analysis of problems and the identification of
solutions [for example, Murray and Lawrence (2000; 28) propose that action research
‘must be a good thing…because it involves individuals in making meaning of his (sic)
experience….it holds out the possibility for ‘creative’ development of knowledge, ‘skilled’
observation, ‘critical’ understanding of the social order’]; (iii) most radically and within a
truly ‘emancipatory’ approach that seeks to empower and liberate research participants,
there is a belief that those directly experiencing a social ‘reality’ are in the best position
to offer valid insights into the nature of their problems and the most appropriate
solutions [for example, of such groups, Whyte (1991; 11) suggests that ‘perhaps they had
learned things about operating under disadvantageous conditions that might even be
useful for (other) professionals’].

We are seeing the development of more formal mechanisms for ensuring quality in
participation: via ‘collaborative off-line reflection’ (Rudloph et al, 2001); ‘self-reflective
practices’ (Marshall, 2001) and ‘assessment of facilitation and participation in action
research’ (Wadsworth, 2001).

These various positions perhaps suggest quite contrasting motivations for participation in
action research. At one extreme, a ‘principled’ position can be detected in the literature
that implies that participation is intrinsically necessary in both principle and practical
terms (Reason and Bradbury, 2001b). Moreover, the inference is that this ethic should be
applied to all research projects and questions (Beresford, 1999). These views are
significant in relation to two themes that recur throughout this review that will influence
the contents and tone of any action research resource.

Firstly, there is the question of the extent to which the various elements need to be
enforced before any work can be classified as being of a ‘true’ form of practice. Secondly,
there are different positions on the extent to which the principles of action research
should be applied to all forms of research questions. Whilst the principled tenor of much
of the literature implies the inherent superiority of action research (a fundamentalist
position), there are others, who whilst not being openly critical, suggest that it need not
be universally applied to all research questions (Baum, 1996). For example, Parry et al
(2001; 216) propose that ‘user participation does not necessarily lend itself to every
research circumstance’. In this context a more flexible eclectic orientation is preferred that
matches the most suited or useful research approach to the particular set of
circumstances being experienced. This issue will be returned to throughout the review
and specifically in section 7. In the meantime a range of further features emerge from
the notion of participation and these are described below.

11
4.2 Action research in social situations, the bridging of the theory-practice gap
and an educative motive

A cluster of associated features can be identified around the ‘applied’ nature of action
research. Primarily, a view exists that action research will occur in ‘real’ situations as
opposed to contexts artificially created by a research project. Elliot (1991; 69) for example
sees it as ‘the study of a social situation with a view to improving the quality of action
within it’. Linked to this feature, is the belief that action research should be associated
with a specific problem and perhaps this is particularly so within work with a needs
assessment orientation. Whilst this pathogenic approach would imply a link to an
ultimate solution, interestingly, there appears to be relatively little action research work
that adopts Antonovsky’s (1996) notion of a salutogenic approach that identifies
affirmative solutions independent of problems (Green et al, 1995; 12). Whilst Green et al
(1995) cite Park’s (1993) insistence that ‘participatory research begins with a problem’
they counter this assumption with the example of the work of the University of Calgary’s
International Centre that, ‘does not necessarily begin with a problem’ (Green et al, 1995;
12). Two subsequent positions can perhaps be identified: work that identifies solutions
that arise specifically from identified problems and which deals with eliminating the
negative circumstances [Green et al, (1995; 13) recognise that this work will normally exist
in relation to specific or ‘proximal’ health problems]; the identification of broad needs
(solutions) independent of the existence of any defined problem and work with a positive
orientation [what Green et al, (1995; 12/13) call broad ‘empowerment’ or ‘emancipation’
with a concern for distal ‘social determinants of health’].

Explicitly acknowledging this social element, there is also a belief that the locating of
work within complex social mechanisms or systems will instrumentally improve the
implementation of subsequent findings (Winter and Munn-Giddings, 2001; 7). Thus,
rather than the research process being defined by the imposition of potentially
inappropriate views, choices and options (and possible failure and non-implementation)
by ‘outsiders’, the belief is that action research will lead to what Quinn Patton (1990; 149)
calls ‘utilisation focused’ research where ‘precisely the information needed’ is generated.

The ability of action research to bring researchers and participants together has led some
to argue that it can overcome a ‘theory-practice’ gap. Holter and Schwartz-Barcott (1993)
argue that formal (and inappropriate) ‘scientific’ theory is generated by external and
detached researchers and that this may be at odds with informal theory generated by
participants on the ground. Carr and Kemmis (1986) capture this as,

‘action researchers...are inclined to see the development of theory or understanding

as a by-product of the improvement of ’real situations, rather than [seeing]
application as a by-product of advances in ‘pure’ theory’ (Carr and Kemmis, 1986; 28)

This position has been expressed in two broad ways:

(i) in the specific context of ‘practitioner research’ where professional reflection, intuition
and experience are given at least equal status (and at time preference) to traditional
scientific methods and knowledge (Fuller and Petch, 1995);

12
(ii) a wider view that those normally excluded from research processes (e.g. communities,
children, the unemployed) have compelling (and at times better) insights into issues
related to the research topic (Macaulay et al, 1999).

Again, these views are expressed with varying degrees of potency in the literature.
Perhaps in the belief that formal science and the alternative views of reality embodied
within an action research ethos are respectively over and under-represented, some pursue
a relatively forceful and fundamental espousal of a practitioner or lay perspectives as
some form of counter balance or redress (Lawrence, 2001; 146). Others adopt a more
‘disinterested’ analysis that either seeks to bring together the best of both forms of
reality or applies the most appropriate evidence to the circumstances (Park, 2001).

Action research is also perceived to have educative and developmental elements (Kemmis
and McTaggart, 1990). So, as well as contributing to practicable outcomes, there is a
perception that the action research process confers benefit to those involved in it via
inclusion, empowerment and critical analysis of their social circumstances. In this light,
Winter and Munn-Giddings (2001; 7) propose that action research ‘is concerned just as
much with the process of inquiry as its ‘findings’’ and Allen (2000; 5) concludes that action
research has a role of developing,

‘self-help competencies of people facing problems……(and) a learning environment

which challenges the status quo and generates liberating alternatives’ (Allen, 2000;
bold added)

Despite their prominence in the literature, some argue against this position, suggesting
that, due to practical and political restraints, these solutions have the potential to be
respectively:

• introspective and thus apolitical and/or conservative (Murray and Lawrence, 2000);
• localised (Waterman et al, 2001);
• superficial (Jennings and Graham, 1996);
• intuitive and anecdotal (Webb, 1996);
• atheoretical (Winter, 1989).

This discussion clearly highlights a lively on-going debate between different positions of
action research and establishes the existence of variations in orientation that will be
explored in more detail later within the coverage of action research typologies (see
section 5). Whilst the predominant rhetoric within the literature suggests ambitious
sentiments (i.e. that action research has the potential to bring about significant change at
global levels), some offer a more modest account of this form of research that
respectively curbs such ambition and favours work of a more modest and localised form
(Jennings and Graham, 1996). Rather than being fundamental or radical in its scope and
intent, this position sees action research as offering relatively modest inputs to policy and
planning processes. For example, Greig and Kershnar (2000) advocate that action
research’s ‘local specificity and integration of assessment and response may make it less
useful as a research tool for national or regional level decision making’ (Greig and
Kershnar, 2000; 27) and Ong (2000) suggests, ‘in my experience, this approach is most

13
 suited to micro- and meso-level policy-making, rather than at the macro level’ (Ong, 2000;
50).

At the core of this position is the view that action research should not necessarily produce
something new or different (Greig and Kershnar, 2000; 26). Rather, it has the principal
role of either deciding upon the best way forward from a predefined and limited range
of options or transferring existing evidence based solutions to particular localities -
essentially a form of deductive research that test and selects the best option from a
closed range and seeks implementation via ‘diffusion of innovation’ or ‘transferability’.
Stimson et al (1999; 319) for example offer the possibility of action research acting, ‘to
scale up local programmes’ where ‘interventions developed in one location may need to
be modified to be used elsewhere’ (Stimson et al, 1999; 319). Friedman (2000) thus offers
a view of action research as ‘engineering’ rather that ‘science’ in that it adapts ‘existing
proven methods to a situation’ (Friedman, 2000; 38). In a similar vein, Manderson (2000)
suggests that it is designed to, ‘fine-tune programmes that are already in operation or
planned’ (Manderson, 2000; 46).

4.3 Action research as bringing about sustainable change via cyclical processes

This belief that action research inherently and inevitably disputes traditional stances and
practices with a view to leading to tangible alternatives forms another core definitional
feature. The notion of ‘praxis’ or deliberately acting on the conditions of one’s situation
in order to change them (Grundy, 1987; 154) is thus expressed frequently in the literature.
In this sense praxis oriented action research has become associated with
‘innovation….change management and practice management’ (Waterman et al, 2001;
52). Developing the idea of action research being an interactive and participative process,
change is usually couched within the context of a comprehensive and balanced ‘cyclical’
or ‘spiral’ process, consisting generally of four recurring phases: planning, acting,
observing and reflecting (Winter, 1996; 13-14; Kemmis and McTaggart, 1986; 11-14). As
well as the favourable features derived from research undertaken with an ‘action’
orientation described above (e.g. participation, attention to social systems in
implementation, etc.), this cyclical component is believed to confer two further benefits.
First (and related to the notion that action research improves the possibility of
implementation) a cyclical and localised process of needs assessment, planning, action,
and evaluation, leading to the construction of new problems is superior to a linear model
of knowledge creation and dissemination based on undertaking centralised systematic
reviews, developing generalised frameworks, dissemination to local levels and ultimate
implementation and assessment (Waterman, 2001; 54). In this sense, Winter and Munn-
Giddings (2001; 11) locate action research in the context of relatively more complex and
sophisticated models of research and development. Second, Argyris et al (1985) feel that
due to their embedded nature, these features create conditions that result in more
sustainable change and ‘lasting improvements’ (Argyris et al, 1985 p.137).

In summary, based on a critique of other forms of research that lack an action

orientation, the notion of praxis is on occasions perceived to be a specific and exclusive
feature of action research. However, three lines of counter-critique have been developed

14
against this proposition. First, Williams (1995) suggests that praxis should not be
associated solely with action research - other forms of research can be undertaken with
an intent to bring about change without being formally labelled as action research.
Likewise, there are occasions when action research can legitimately be pursued in the
absence of any predefined expectation of change. For example, Williams (1995; 50) points
out that in situations where action research is used to clarify values and appraise options
for change and where action is subsequently felt to be inappropriate or unnecessary,
action research can actually result in relatively low levels of action (for a further
discussion of the relationship between the action research and various stages of the
research process see section 5.3).

Second, a broader question is levelled at the appropriateness of using research as a

vehicle for participation and change. In essence, the relationship between research and
action is made problematic in that: (a) action research may not lead to action; (b) action
may result form other forms of research and (c) action may lead from non-research based
activity. Using Pettigrew’s (1988) notion of change being a product of an interaction
between a wide range of forces (e.g. content, process and context), East and Robinson,
(1994) develop a line of reasoning that suggests that the achievement of outcomes
associated with action research (e.g. change, participation, bridging the theory practice
gap) be fulfilled by means other than action research (Prasad, 2001). For many, within a
rational perception of the links between research and policy & practice, (action) research
can be considered as a relatively powerful lever of change. Baum (1998; 186) for example,
assumes that ‘research can serve to legitimate and validate activities that might not
otherwise be taken seriously by power brokers’. Moreover, there is a view that action
research can be particularly effective in this role. For example, Parry et al (2001; 217) talk
of ‘the inability of positivist research approaches to mount an effective challenge upon
the social processes of discrimination and marginalisation’ and go on to suggest that
‘participatory research’ can ‘lead to better outcomes’. However, some hold a more
sceptical view of the actual potential to influence policy and practice in any significant or
rational way. These individuals suggest that research is commissioned and undertaken
with a variety of political motives and decision making being made on the basis of a
range of rational and ‘irrational’ forces (Hirschon Weiss & Wittrock, 1991). In this context,
action research would be considered as one (relatively limited) lever amongst a range of
mechanisms that could potentially be deployed to bring about change. The critical issue
that arises therefore revolves around the assessment of the extent to which action
research would be the most appropriate vehicle of change as opposed to other more
explicitly political or practical activities (Whitelaw and Williams, 1994). In this light, Hart
and Bond (2000; 101) and Winter and Munn-Giddings (2001; 30-31) suggest the problem
is not a narrow methodological one, as is implied by a focus on action research, but a
rather much deeper political and conceptual one around the ways in which problems and
solutions are generally constructed. For example, in the disability field, Beresford (1999)
proposes that the ways in which needs are identified (that is, around individual disabled
people and/or disabling environments) are a function of broad initial values rather than
empirical action research.

Third, in the context of what McKeganey (2000) calls the ‘problem of induction’, concern
has been expressed that action research does not necessarily produce innovative or

15
appropriate change. In the more idealistic accounts and building upon the notion of
action research inductively ‘discovering’ new or hidden problems (generalising from
specific empirical evidence) and offering democratic and innovative solutions, the
assumption for many is that such work can create such insights. McKeganey (2000) for
example suggests, ‘the assumption is that those doing rapid action research do not start
with preconceived ideas as to the kind of interventions that may be needed’ (McKeganey,
2000; 14). Against this, rather than being liberating, many are concerned that the
inductive process is essentially conservative. In some ways this position is embedded in
many of the accounts of action research. Fazey (2000) for example, states, ‘we need to
know not only the nature and extent of the problem, but also what could be done about
it within existing response structures’ (Fazey, 2000; 170 italics added) and Power (2000)
concludes, ‘we need to be realistic…any suggested interventions should reflect the data,
but must also take into account the existing legal and political climate’ (Power, 2000; 190
italics added).

At a practical level, it is suggested that ‘true’ inductive investigation should lead to a

variety of solutions, McKeganey (2000) stating, ‘on this basis, one would expect a wide
variation in identified interventions’ (McKeganey, 2000; 15). However, he concludes,
‘there does not appear to be the level of variability that one might expect on the basis of
truly inductive enquiry’ (McKeganey, 2000; 15). The implication here is that action
research may not create new solutions, but rather subtly implies or explicitly offers a
limited number of existing solutions to participating groups that in turn are reflected
back to the researchers as original truths. As such, Sarkar (2000) suggests that action
research may paradoxically ‘obstruct creative thinking’ (Sarkar, 2000; 51). As well as being
technically problematic, these circumstances point to wider political concerns and the
impossibility of separating the action research process from the political context in which
it is being undertaken. Fazey (2000) recognises that, ‘at all levels the assessment can be a
political time-bomb, or used and manipulated for political purposes’ (Fazey, 2000; 171).
Therefore within this context, rather than challenging existing patterns of response, it is
suggested that the drive to reach pragmatic and consensual outcomes potentially forces
action research into ‘safe’ or politically predefined territory. For example Sarkar (2000)
poses the question, ‘in order to reach a consensus action plan, does it lead to
confirmation of the bias of the existing belief of politicians?’ and Friedman (2000)
answers it in the following fashion, ‘the agencies that invite someone to do an rapid
action research project may be part of the ‘problem’ and not interested in taking the
actions that might prevent the problem (Friedman, 2000; 38). As such, De Jong (2000)
comes to the gloomy conclusion that action research ‘may actually not promote but
hinder the improvement of public health’ (De Jong, 2000; 55).

16
4.4 The notion of action research as ‘rapid’

Perhaps derived from the perception that action research will deliver practical and
useable outcomes, some aspects of the literature suggest that this work should be done
in a ‘rapid’ fashion (Bowling, 1997; 367). For example, Taket and White (2000; 55-56) offer
three maxims for rapid action research:

• learn rapidly and progressively;

• offset biases (don’t assume as a professional and quickly get a wide range of views);

• optimize trade-offs (collect data of value and minimize worthless data; ‘the principle of
optimal ignorance, knowing what is not worth knowing, and appropriate imprecision –
not measuring more than needed, i.e. better to be approximately right than precisely
wrong’).

In this respect, three related fields have emerged based largely on the central notion of
research assessing ‘need’ – these are, ‘rapid appraisal’ (for example, Ong, 1996; Murray,
1999), ‘rapid assessment and response’ and ‘rapid action research’ (Power, 2000). The
underlying expectation is that this rapid method can offer quick and pragmatic responses
to a particular problem or set of conditions that are linked to the needs of those on the
ground experiencing them. Rhodes et al(2000; 5) capture this as a situation that ‘moves
communities more quickly and cheaply from assessment to response…. (and it) implicitly
recognises the process of assessment as the beginning of the response itself’.

Against these generally positive expectations, there exists a belief that it is relatively
difficult to do this work ‘rapidly’. For example, Beebe (2000; 31) raises the problem of
rapid forms of action research being done too quickly without the chance for the data to
be collected and analysed rigorously and sees this as analogous to ‘research tourism’.
Likewise, Fazey (2000; 172) suggests that, ‘one danger can be that they (policy makers)
expect too much in the time available’. This is endorsed by a range of experiences from
the field: ‘we found that we could not implement the entire protocol….in a rapid
manner’ (Archibald et al, 2000; 42); ‘it still takes time and resources’ (Trautmann &
Burrows, 2000; 60); ‘(we were working to an) impossibly short time frame’ (Manderson,
2000; 45); ‘we should not expect more from a rapid assessment than it can deliver…it is
not a panacea’ (Power, 2000; 189).

17
5. Action research values and typologies
Given the assortment of influences that have shaped action research and the resultant
breadth of action, it is unsurprising that several typologies have been devised in an
attempt to formally classify approaches and activity. Hart and Bond (1996) see the value
of typologies as,

‘(providing) a basis on which to distinguish different action research approaches

according to the researcher’s underlying philosophical position…(they also identify)
essential characteristics of action research and show how these differ depending on
the type of knowledge produced’ (Hart and Bond, 1996; 152).

Efforts at creating typologies have included both simple descriptive frameworks, as well
as more ambitious constructions that include explicit values (Rawson, 1992). Perhaps the
most significant transformation from what can be considered as ‘descriptive’ models
towards more ambitious typologies occurred when Hart and Bond (1996) (later supported
by Waterman et al, 2001) critiqued existing typologies, in particular that of Holter &
Schwartz-Barcott (1993). They argued that the tendency for efforts at definition being
based simply on the collecting together of a range of descriptive features and activities
felt to be associated with action research had resulted in a unnecessarily broad and
uncritical analysis of action research (Hart and Bond, 1996; 151). Waterman et al (2001)
thus conclude that

‘an embracing definition of action research remains elusive and existing definitions
tend to focus on the description of characteristics’ (Waterman et al, 2001; 11)

In other words, in a circular fashion, action research as a broad label is defined by the
activities that various observers (from varied bases) have considered to be associated with
it (Waterman et al, 2001; 11). They contend that Holter & Schwartz-Barcott’s typology is
‘philosophically limited’ and ‘deals with action research as if it were static and rational
rather than dynamic and non-rational’ (Hart and Bond, 1996; 152). Hart and Bond’s
response to these perceived weaknesses forms what could be considered as the most
ambitious and successful effort at arriving at a comprehensive and profound typology of
action research. Before outlining this typology, the following section will summarise the
nature of the various themes that constitute a broad value base as well as specific
definitional efforts that preceded it.

5.1 The broad values that define action research

The typologies that will ultimately be described do in themselves contain implicit value
positions and section 6.1 below develops these in the context of research methodology.
To foreground this discussion, this section will attempt to capture the broad nature of the
value base and the various contributory strands that specifically underpin action research.
These can be considered to exist at various levels and inevitably embody divergence and
potential conflict. This variation will be considered using a combination of resources from
Guba and Lincoln (1994; 112-117); Beattie (1991; 183-193) and Melrose (1996; 54) that
serve the functions of:
18
 (i) providing specific focal points around which values can be considered (ranging from
specific ontological and epistemological analyses of the nature of knowledge and the
means by which it is generated) through subsequently to the moral and professional
consequences that inexorably follow,

(ii) offering conceptual resources that attempt to articulate the dimensions and
subsequent variation that exists within the value base - for Guba and Lincoln this consists
of the four contrasting philosophical positions of ‘positivism’, ‘post-positivism’, ‘critical
theory’ and ‘constructivism’; for Melrose it is the existence of three evaluative paradigms,
functional, transactional and critical; for Beattie this involves the use of a two
dimensional ‘cross-classification’ method that, in summary, comprises the dimensions
outlined below and when combined subsequently produces four positional quadrants.

Table 1: A summary of the elements used by Beattie (1991) in his cross

cutting analysis

Ranging from

Dimension 1 Fixed stable and closed
knowledge, authoritative,
paternalist, expert directed, fixed
closed and finite order, firm, the
abstract and objective
Fluid, negotiable diffuse and open
knowledge, negotiated,
participatory, client centred, free
open and provisional order, the
experiential and subjective

Dimension 2 Individual, personal, private, Collective, positional, public,

difference, individuality likeness, control, commonality
delineated delineated

A range of more specific topics can be identified:

• What general political philosophies underpin the research? This ranges from the desire
to paternalistically control to emancipatory approaches that seek to empower or
enfranchise individuals and groups.

• What is the specific aim or purpose of the inquiry? This ranges from the functional need
to explain, predict and control in a relatively unquestioning way (as typified by
positivist and post- positivist stances) through to a more critical stance that seeks to
uncover new, different or hidden understandings that will act to change the existing
order.

• What is the nature of knowledge? This is based on the notion of knowledge being
seen as relatively fixed and uncomplicated through to an acceptance that it is
constructed and thus varied and contested.

19
 • How does knowledge accumulate? Accumulation is perceived to occur either in a
formal ‘building block’ fashion via testing, refutation/confirmation and cause-effect
generalisations or in a more haphazard fashion that is influenced by power, historical
revision and leaps of discovery.

• What criteria are applied in assessing ‘goodness’ or ‘quality’? Ranging from

conventional benchmarks of ‘rigour’ (reliability, validity and objectivity) through to a
more socially negotiated and accommodating notion of authenticity and
trustworthiness.

• What professional implications ensue? The role of those involved in research can range
from an authoritative and corrective orientation on predefined ground to one that
seeks to mobilse individuals and groups on ground of their choosing.

5.2 Initial efforts at defining typologies

In more practical terms and building on these bases, some have made a rudimentary
differentiation between ‘traditional’ or ‘fundamental’ research seeking to establish
general laws using sampling techniques and ‘action’ research that actively seeks change
and improvement in some fashion (Waterman, 1995). In a more developed sense, Quinn
Patton (1990) attempts to locate action research in relation to other research traditions,
listing on a continuum: basic research concerned with fundamental knowledge and
theory; applied research illuminating a societal concern; summative evaluation seeking
to determine programme effectiveness; formative evaluation to improve a programme;
and finally action research attempting to solve a specific problem (Quinn Patton, 1990;
150).

Within the action research field itself, various observers have constructed variations on a
three-dimension typology. These have focused on different aspects of the research
process:

• The level of focus: Torbert (2001) offers a view of action research as being expressed
at different levels; ‘first, second and third person action research/practice’, where the
‘first level’ relates to the relatively specific material of ones’ own life or professional
practice,the ‘second level’ adopts a collective enquiry into broad services and the ‘third
level’ to wider political events;

• The degree of participation Holter and Schwartz-Barcott (1993; 301), Grundy (1982;
363) & Zuber-Skerritt (1996; 4) respectively propose technical/collaborative, mutual
collaborative and enhancement/emancipatory participatory approaches;

• The vision of knowledge McCutcheon and Jurg (1990; 145-147) suggest that action
research can reflect different philosophical bases - a positivist perspective, an
interpretivist perspective and a critical science perspective.

These are represented below (it should be noted that there is not necessarily full
compatibility between the range of elements in the vertical columns):

20
Table 2: Elements of various descriptive action research typologies

Technical and modest orientation ambitious emancipatory orientation

Grundy (1982: Technical action Practical, or mutual – Emancipatory
363) research collaboration action participatory action
research research;

McKernan Action research as a Action research as a Action research as a

(1991; 16-27) scientific-technical practical-deliberative critical-emancipatory
view of problem process process
solving

Zuber-Skerrit Technical Practical Emancipatory

(1996; 4)

Holter and A technical/ A mutual An enhancement

Schwartz- collaborative collaborative approach
Barcott (1993; approach approach
301)

Torbert (2001; First, person action Second person action Third person action
251) research/practice’ research/practice research/practice

McCutheon A positivist An interpretivist A critical science

and Jurg (1990; perspective perspective perspective
145-147

The following discussion seeks to broadly summarise the nature of each of these three
types.

Type 1: Technical Scientific & Positivist Action Research

Such work would start off with the intention of linking research to action but would
operate within a traditional ‘scientific’ method. Based on the assumption that experts or
those in authority have greater experience or knowledge, initial research scope, questions
and theoretical resources would be set independent of significant interaction with the
research arena and its subjects. These participants act at the level of providing ‘on the
ground’ feedback within fixed parameters. The main aim of the research would be to
‘test’ the effectiveness of a particular predefined intervention. Finally, data collection,
analysis, interpretation and ultimate knowledge would be undertaken by researchers and
would tend to be treated as transparent and unproblematic. Torbert’s ‘first person’ action
research often departs from this type, for example, when ‘practitioner research’ is
deemed a legitimate way to generate new knowledge and insights.

21
Type 2: Mutual-Collaborative & Interpretivist Action Research
In this form of action research, policy makers, researchers and field practitioners are
perceived to come together within the context of the research to identify potential
problems, their possible nature and a range of likely interventions, with the assumption
that in an ideal situation of unimpaired communication and some form of consensus can
be reached. The supposition is that all involved have an equally valid contribution and
that different forms of perception or reality may be possible; for example McCutcheon
and Jurg (1990; 146) suggest that, ‘indicative of this flexibility is the frequent use of
'interpretive' as an umbrella term that comfortably accommodates interactive and
phenomenological perspectives’ (McCutcheon and Jurg 1990:146). As there is, in theory, a
consensus and little imposition of authoritarian or expert views, prospects for
implementation are perceived to be high, though Holter & Schwartz-Barcott (1993; 301)
suggest that this change can be short lived as those who brokered the solution leave and
are replaced by new individuals with different perspectives.

Type 3: Critical and emancipatory action research

Beyond the pragmatism and functionalism expressed above, a third type of action
research is proposed that sees research as an explicit vehicle for political and critical
expression (Grundy, 1987; 154). Beyond the assumption above that action research can act
to achieve a practical consensus, this approach works on the basis that within any system,
deep-rooted ideological forces exist that distort the way that different individuals within
it perceived reality and whose effects ultimately shape real experiences. Three broad
mechanisms are deployed in response to this perception: the introduction of innovative
theory that offers a different world view that critiques existing assumptions (hegemony);
the identification of community led needs and solutions; and the mobilisation of
individual and collective forces for change (Wadsworth, 2001). These features are
concisely summarised by Gaventa and Cornwell (2001; 74) when they say that action
research ‘makes claims to challenge power relations in each of its
dimensions….knowledge as a resource which effects decisions; action which looks at who
is involved in the production of such knowledge; and consciousness which looks at how
the production of knowledge changes the awareness or worldview of those involved’. In
this context, the approach is concerned less with methodological correctness and more
with the values of participation, empowerment and emancipation towards redressing
imbalances in power (Kemmis, 2001).

So, in attempting to define and order various strands of action research, we see that
action research can be differentiated on the basis of a wider range of issues. In summary,
these tend to be: the nature of the philosophical base; perceptions of reality and the role
of values; the purpose of the research; the scope of the defined problem; the extent of
participation & collaboration; the types of theory & knowledge deployed; expectations of
change duration (see appendix 2 & appendix 3 for an example of this Holter and
Schwartz-Barcott, 1993; Grundy, 1982; 363).

22
5.3 Hart and Bond’s typology

Perhaps the most comprehensive and accomplished typology has been developed by Hart
and Bond (1995; 40-44) and this is offered here in the review as a key contribution to the
mapping of various types of action research. In the typology, they identify seven
normative criteria that distinguish action research:

it is educative, it deals with individuals as members of social groups; it is problem focused,

context specific and future oriented; it involves a change intervention; it aims at
improvement and involvement; it involves a cyclical process in which research, action and
evaluation are interlinked and it is founded on a research relationship in which those
involved are participants in the change process (37)

They also offer the prospect of the research occurring in a context that is bounded by the
end points of a continuum defined by the end views of society being based on either a
‘consensus model and rational social management’ or a ‘conflict model of society and
structural change’ (40)

They ultimately propose 4 types of action research – experimental, organisational,

professionalising and empowering and these are considered in relation to the
dimensions.

23
Table 3: Hart and Bond (1995) An action research typology

consensus model of society conflict model of society

rational social management structural change
experimental organisational professionalising empowering
1. Re-education Re-education/ Reflective practice Consciousness-
Educative training raising
base
Enhancing social Enhancing Enhancing Enhancing user-
science/administra managerial professional control and
tive control and control and control and shifting balance of
social change organisational individual’s ability power; structural
towards consensus change towards to control work change towards
consensus situation pluralism

Inferring Overcoming Empowering Empowering

relationship resistance to professional oppressed groups
between change/restructuri groups; advocacy
behaviour and ng balance of on behalf of
output; power between patients/clients
identifying causal managers and
factors in group workers
dynamics

Social scientific Managerial Practitioner User/practitioner

bias/researcher bias/client focused focused focus
focus

2. Closed group, Work groups Professional(s) Fluid groupings,

Individuals controlled, and/or mixed and/or self selecting or
in groups selection made by groups of (interdisciplinary) natural boundary
researcher for managers and professional or open/closed by
purposes of workers group/negotiated negotiation
measurement/infe team boundaries
rring relationship
between cause
and effect

Fixed membership Selected Shifting Fluid membership

membership membership

3. Problem emerges Problem defined Problem defined Emerging and

Problem from the by most powerful by professional negotiated
focused interaction of group; some group; some definition of
social science negotiation with negotiation with problem by less
theory and social workers users powerful group(s)
problems Problem emerges

24
 consensus model of society conflict model of society
rational social management structural change
experimental organisational professionalising empowering
3. Problem relevant Problem relevant Problem emerges from members’
Problem for social for management/ from professional practice/experience
focused science/manageme social science practice/experience
nt interests interests
Competing
Success defined in Success defined by Contested, definitions of
terms of social sponsors professionally success accepted
science determined and expected
definitions of
success

4. Social science, Top-down, Professionally led, Bottom-up,

Change experimental directed change pre-defined, undetermined,
intervention intervention to towards process led process led
test theory and/or predetermined
generate theory aims

Problem to be Problem to be Problem to be Problem to be

solved in terms of solved in terms of resolved in the explored as part
research aims management aims interests of of process of
research-based change,
practice and developing an
professionalisation understanding of
meanings of issues
in terms of
problem and
solution

5. Towards Towards tangible Towards Towards

Improveme controlled outcome and improvement in negotiated
nt and outcome and consensual practice defined outcomes and
involvement consensual definition of by professionals pluralist
definition of improvement and on behalf of definitions of
improvement users improvement:
account taken of
vested interests

6. Research Action and Research and Action

Cyclical components research action components
processes dominant components in components in dominant
tension; action tension; research
dominated dominated

25
 consensus model of society conflict model of society
rational social management structural change
experimental organisational professionalising empowering
6. Identifies causal Identifies causal Identifies causal Change course of
Cyclical processes that can processes that are processes that are events;
processes be generalised specific to specific to recognition of
problem context problem context multiple
and/or can be and/or can be influences upon
generalised generalised change

Time limited, task Discrete cycle, Spiral of cycles, Open-ended,

focused rationalist, opportunistic, process driven
sequential dynamic

7. Experimenter/ Consultant/researc Practitioner or Practitioner

Research Respondents her, respondent/ researcher/ researcher/co-
relationship, Participants collaborators researchers/co-
degree of change agents
collaboration
Outside researcher Client pays an Outside resources Outside resources
as expert/research outside consultant and/or internally and/or internally
funding ‘they who pay the generated generated
piper call the
tune’

Differentiated Differentiated Merged roles Shared roles

roles roles

26
6. Action research methodology
As well as being concerned with the above definitional, philosophical and political
deliberations, the action research literature has to some extent also considered what
might be seen as practical methodological issues (for example, McNiff, 1996; Winter &
Munn-Giddings, 2001 section III; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1990; Elliot, 1991 chapter 6; Fuller
and Petch (1995) chapters 3, 4 & 5). Again, this literature does not limit itself to purely
functional matters. Significant attention is still paid to critical and definitional matters
(for example, should action research be undertaken exclusively using a limited range of
favoured methods?; can more traditional methods be appropriately used?; how relevant
is the concept of validity to action research?; how methodologically formal should action
research be?; are there research skills specific to action research or can they be considered
as essential to all research?). This section will review both the descriptive base as well as
considering these thornier conceptual issues.

6.1 A philosophical base for action research

Before reviewing the practical nature of action research, this section will briefly review
the associated philosophical and conceptual base (Gaventa and Cornwell, 2001; Park,
2001). First, the action research literature has strongly challenged the character of
‘positivist’ research (Waterman et al, 2001; 13; Winter and Munn-Giddings, 2001; 16/7;
Hart, 1996; 455; Susman and Evered, 1978). These can be summarised as:

• the impossibility of achieving the assumption of objectivity in research findings and

outcomes as well as the ability to control a limited number of research variables (the
problem of reductionism and superficiality associated with experiments);

• a critique of the notion of researchers attaining a detached/value free/neutral position

and a recognition of the existence of oppressive ideologies and vested interests;

• a questioning of a ‘scientific’ demarcation and the features of generalisability,

establishing cause and effect relationships;

• a failure to take account of the social context in which actors construct meaning;

• a tendency to treat humans as passive subjects;

• a disregard for features of the organisational context that shape delivery;

• the resultant notion that positivist research deals with an artificial ‘static’ situation and
is not helpful in ‘real world’ emergent problem solving.

In more positive terms, an alternative set of philosophical and conceptual resources are
deployed by action researchers that attempt to recognise variously, the uncertainty,
complexity, instability, uniqueness and value conflict involved in any research context
(Waterman et al, 2001; 13). Meyer (1993; 1067-1068) and Hart (1996; 455) thus believe
that action research is derived from a different ontological basis – a humanistic social
27
practice rather than a traditional natural science. A range of specific features can be
pursued.

(i) The significance of different types of knowledge. In contrast to a ‘common

sense’ view of knowledge, action research has drawn upon philosophical positions that
emphasise its constructed and contested nature. Park (2001; 82-83) for example
introduces an epistemological analysis in defining contrasting types of action research
knowledge that range from the objective notion of ‘representational/functional’
knowledge to what he terms ‘interpretative’ and ‘reflective’ knowledge. Waterman et al
(2001; 14) elaborates this as ‘dialectics, hermeneutics (accessing meanings, values, and
intentions), praxis (acting on the conditions of one’s situation in order to change them)
and phenomenology’. Gaventa and Cornwall (2001); Park (2001) and Lincoln (2001) also
make an association between action research and the related notion of social
constructionism that aims to view research knowledge,

‘as a resource which affects decisions, action which looks at who is involved in the
production of such knowledge, and consciousness which looks at how the
production of knowledge changes the awareness or worldview of those involved
(Gaventa and Cornwall, 2001; 74)

This attention to the varied and at times contested vision of knowledge has been
complemented by a postmodern movement within action research that is concerned with
the language and discourses that to some extent create local reality (Bradbury, 2001).
Treleaven (2001) believes that this approach has,

‘moved beyond producing more research that sought to identify the ‘real reasons’ or
‘better explanations’ for why the marginal positions (of women in higher education)
persists. Instead, never losing sight of the question how, co-researchers in the
collaborative inquiry…….investigated how the microphysics of power and gender
operated in everyday instutionalised life. In understanding how these processes
maintain and reproduce their gendered situations lies the possibility of interrupting
them in practice’ (Treleaven, 2001; 261)

(ii) Knowledge as political and emancipatory. The above quote begins to suggest
the next theme; that contrary to the (supposedly) detached and impartial nature of
traditional positivist research, through a critical questioning of prevailing knowledge, the
process of action research can begin with an explicit value base and a desire to actively
shape the nature of change (Nolan and Grant, 1993; 305). Waterman et al (2001; 43)
contend that action researchers should avoid seeing their work as a ‘technical exercise’
and ‘stipulate their philosophical approach and [to] indicate how it has influenced the
development of their action research project’. In a similar vein, Lincoln (2001; 130)
proposes that action researchers must be fundamentally committed to action ‘cynics need
not apply’. This position is rooted in ‘critical theory’ (Ledwith, 2001) and Habermas’s
notion of achieving ‘communicative action’ (Kemmis, 2001).

28
 (iii) The significance of systems. As well as these general views of the nature of
knowledge and its production, the applied nature of action research has resulted in the
deployment of a range of conceptual resources [e.g. cybernetic theory, soft systems
thinking, whole systems and socio-ecological perspectives] that attempt to encompass the
complexity of the circumstances in which action research is done and implemented
(Flood, 2001; Procter et al, 2000). Checkland and Scholes (2000) in describing the nature
of ‘soft systems methodology’ stress the ‘humanness’ of situations and the role of many
purposeful individuals driven by many motives and values. Consequently they see,

‘a move away from working with the idea of an ‘obvious’ problem which required
solution, to that of working with the idea of a (complex) situation which some
people, for various reasons, may regard as problematic’ (Checkland and Scholes,
2000; A8)

They go on to argue that action research should be conducted in such a way that it
recognises this complexity, being ‘a whole process (that) is subsequently recoverable by
anyone interested in critically scrutinizing the research’ (Checkland and Scholes, 2000;
A40). These core perspectives have been reflected in a range of more specific applications
and contexts; for example Beattie (2001) and Zuber-Skerritt (1996b) link action research
to broad organisational learning and development respectively with schools and industry.

6.2 Action research in different organisational contexts

The organisational context is also seen as a significant variable in the potential for various
types of research to be undertaken and learning disseminated and it may be the case that
particular organisational circumstances make the advancement of action research
methodologies more likely (Kitson, Harvey and McCormack, 1998; Beattie, 1991; Zuber-
Skerritt, 1996b; Friedman, 2001). As well as considering the core nature of evidence
(ranging from an inferior form that they define as anecdotal, descriptive, contested and
to the ideal of consensual formality via randomised controlled trials and systematic
reviews), Kitson, Harvey and McCormack (1998) identify significant contextual features
(Figure 3 below)

The model is not without its difficulties. In particular, it does not address the potential for
high patient involvement within ‘partnerships’ acting in opposition to the other preferred
elements of consensus and, as they themselves admit, there is little empirical evidence to
suggest the relative significance of each element nor the interaction between them
(Kitson, Harvey and McCormack, 1998; 157). However, in suggesting that all elements
need to be represented (what they term ‘position 4’ where high evidence, high context
and high facilitation are simultaneously present), this group make an important
contribution to our understanding of the significance of the founding circumstances in
which action research takes place. Friedman (2001; 164) offers a similar analysis in linking
organisational consequences of action research to contextual features like environmental,
structural and cultural conditions, individuals’ worldviews, frames of reference & roles
and specific relationships, strategies and decisions)

29
Figure 3: Factors affecting implementation of research findings

I. Context
(i) Culture
low-------------------------------------------------------------high
task driven learning organisation
low regard for individuals patient centred
low morale valuing people
little continuing education continuing education

(ii) Leadership
low-------------------------------------------------------------high
diffuse roles clear roles
lack of team roles effective team work
poor management and leadership quality leadership

(iii) Measurement
low-------------------------------------------------------------high
absence of audit & peer review extensive review

II. Facilitation
(i) Characteristics
low--------------------------------------------------------------high
respect/empathy/authenticity/credibility

(ii) Role
low--------------------------------------------------------------high
lack of clarity of clear change process
change process and & access/authority
access and authority

(iii) Style
low-------------------------------------------------------------high
inflexible range and flexible of style
sporadic consistent and appropriate
infrequent support
inappropriate

adapted from Kitson A., Harvey G. and McCormack B. (1998) Enabling the implementation of
evidence based practice: a conceptual framework Quality in Health Care Vol. 7; 149-158.

30
 In his analysis of ‘systems of rhetoric’ that inform health promotion, Beattie (1991; 192)
complements these notions in more specific terms by identifying a series of ‘spatializing’
effects where systems of knowledge and various tangible institutions or contexts tend to
interact in a form of reciprocal support (Beattie, 1991; 193). For example, using the cross
cutting dimensions of ‘structures of thought’ (ranging from the abstract & objective
‘positivist’ to the experiential and subjective ‘phenomenology’) and ‘structures of
interaction’ (ranging from the personal and individuality to the impersonal and
commonality) to produce four domains and associated spatial sites:

• ‘panoptican’ (e.g. prisons, asylums, 19th century schools, where ‘duties are ascribed
within hierarchies of surveillance, discipline and punishment’);

• ‘pavilion’ (e.g. teaching hospitals, 20th century schools, museums, where ‘tasks are
assigned within homogeneous systems’);

• ‘open-plan’ (e.g. progressive schools, self service supermarkets, where ‘identity is

created by active search, independent discovery and discriminating consumption’);

• ‘multiple networks’ [e.g. agora (an open space where assembly can occur), bazaar,
multi-purpose community centre where, ‘multiple heterogeneous groups celebrate
interdependence in bargaining and co-operative action’].

6.3 Defining the focus of action research and locating this in different stages of
a wider research course of action

Once established in a particular organisational setting, the next two steps identified in
the literature involve firstly establishing a specific focus for the work, including a
pragmatic political assessment of the potential for change, then the location of this work
in a wider research process. As guidance in the first task, Kemmis and McTaggart (1988;
91-99) and Hart and Bond (1995; 186-190) offer guidelines that support the definition of
the problem and context in which any proposed action research project is being
undertaken. In a school context, Kemmis and McTaggart (1988; 91-99) utilise a ‘table of
invention’ that teases out the nature of the proposed ‘subject matter’/ defined problem
and the contextual ‘milieux’ in relation to the respective views of teachers and students.
Hart and Bond (1995; 186-190) propose a list of more specific questions, including;

31
Figure 4: Problem definition checklist

• what is the purpose of the project?

• why is it important to do something about this situation at this point in time?
• why do you want to initiate such a project?
• is there a problem?
• who are the key stakeholders and what stake do they have in the
situation/problem?
• which stakeholders have the most power and what is the nature of that power?
• what is your relationship to each of these stakeholders?
• are you able to identify the problem and its causes?
• how might other stakeholders see the nature and causes of this problem?
• how might you find out about the details of the problem and what specific
evidence do you have?
• what alternative evidence can you generate and where can it be found?

Additionally, Cohen and Manion (1994) consider the ’occasions when action research as a
method is appropriate’, concluding that, ‘action research is appropriate whenever specific
knowledge is required for a specific problem in a specific situation…or when a new
approach is to be grafted onto an existing system….(but) suitable mechanisms must be
available for monitoring progress and for translating feedback into the ongoing system’.
They then list an eclectic range of more specific areas where application might occur
including, developing new work methods, evaluation procedures, modifying attitudes
and values, in-service skills development, management & control and improving the
efficiency of administration.

As well as gaining this specific focus and recognising the small-scale ‘internal’ steps
involved in a discrete research project [for example, Blaxter et al (1996) construct this
process as comprising design, sampling, data collection, data analysis and reporting
stages], many have identified a broader strategic process with stages or levels through
which a substantive topic of interest will be researched or more specifically evaluated
(Tones, 1998; 51; HEBS, 1999; Wimbush & Watson, 2000; Barker, 1996). In summary these
embrace the following:

• establishing foundations; including for example, needs assessment, issue definition,

objective and priority setting, option definition and appraisal, concept and feasibility
testing;

• implementation; including process oriented performance review and monitoring;

• post-implementation evaluation; including both short and longterm outcome

evaluation, assessment of efficacy and effectiveness, etc.

In a complementary fashion, Barker (1996; 36) suggests that the aims of research can be
respectively: descriptive (the simple creation of a descriptive record); analytical (an

32
attempt to explain concepts in abstract theoretical terms); consultative (an effort to
assess ‘subjective’ opinion) and evaluative (the assessment of outcome against some
prescribed criteria).

Most generally, this tension is perhaps most acutely felt when considering the
relationship between action research and evaluation. For example, Greene (1994; 532)
and Guba and Lincoln (1994; 112) identify broad positions that define the breadth of the
philosophical base of any practical or evaluative process. These range from a pragmatic
‘positivist’ stance that favours a relatively uncomplicated vision of the evaluative context
and the use of structured research designs (e.g. experiments, systems analysis and causal
modelling) and quantitative data through to ‘interpretist’ and ‘critical’ positions that
embody values and actions typically analogous with those within the action research field
(for example, a constructionist view of reality, a participatory and emancipatory ethic and
the use of qualitative based case studies).

In more specific terms, contrasting positions can be taken in any attempt to make
associations between action research methodology and this range of positions and
elements. First, it could be argued that action research is best suited to and practically
expressed in types of research and particular stances and elements of the research
process; for example, an emphasis on consultative needs assessment have been
particularly favoured within health related action research and Schein (2001; 229) offers a
relatively rigid conceptual map of research types based on the degree of participation:

Subject/client involvement
Low High

Researcher Low Demography Experiments and surveys

Involvement

High Participant observation Action Research

and ethnography

Second, rather than being associated with relatively ‘softer’ research components, action
research could be utilised towards more ‘rigorous’ evaluative ends (Greene, 1994; Rist,
1994) Finally, it could be argued that, rather than action research being used as a
secondary or functional contribution to wider procedure, the whole research process
could be undertaken within the context of a comprehensive action research approach (for
example, Hills, 2001).

The same analysis can be applied to contrasting types of public health action, with the
suggestion that action research has a greater degree of affinity with the features
expressed in the right hand column.

33
 Table 4: Types of public health research (devised for this report by Whitelaw,
2001)

‘Narrow’ public health research ‘Wider’ public health research

Descriptive
Reductionist (to individual ‘risks’)
Tendency to be conservative
Emphasis on problem definition
Emphasis on disease (‘pathogenic’)
Emphasis on individual health and illness
Emphasis on health service effectiveness
Emphasis on professional/clinical data
Analytical
Holistic (causation as complex and multiple)
Willingness to be critical
Emphasis on solution generation
Emphasis on health (‘salutogenic’)
Emphasis on population trends
Emphasis on wider social interventions
Emphasis on ‘lay’ perspectives

6.4 Core skills and methods for action research

Whilst many would argue that all research of a high quality requires a range of common
abilities and skills (Robson, 1993), the case is made in the literature, that given the
specific nature of the undertaking and associated demands, action research requires
particular skills (McNiff et al, 1996; 32). This belief arises predominantly from the
perception that the complex, negotiated and applied nature of action research requires
not only technical research abilities but also wider interpersonal skills. As such, Waterman
et al (2001; 44-53) list a range of relatively general skills that they feel are required for
high quality action research including, listening, management collaboration, intra-
personal and project and group management skills.

This broader view of research skills is complemented by a related belief that the general
ethos of action research needs to differ from the assumptions associated with ‘traditional’
approaches. This occurs in relation to manageability [for example, Edwards and Talbot
(1997; 57) suggest that, ‘data collection methods for use by action researchers need to be
easy to manage and non-intrusive for clients’]; informality [Quinn Patton (1990; 157)
suggests that ‘research methods tend to be less systematic, more informal, and quite
specific to the problem, people, and organisation in which the research is undertaken’;
and Winter and Munn-Giddings (2001; 9) contend that action research ‘needs to be
flexible enough to accompany the complex and developing interactions arising from
practice’] and philosophy [as established above, Quinn Patton (1990; 150) proposes that
‘seeking objectivity is less of an issue for action researchers than for other researchers’].
These views are embodied in Waterman’s (1995) attempt to make an unambiguous
distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘action’ research (Waterman, 1995; 15).

34
6.5 Managing the practical nature of the research process

In most practical terms, efforts have been made to define the practical elements required
in the undertaking of the action research process. Kemmis and McTaggart (1988; 106-108)
list a range of ‘principles of procedure’ that have strong ethical components; these
include,

• observing protocol;
• involving participants;
• negotiating with those affected;
• reporting progress;
• obtaining explicit authorisation before observation starts;
• obtaining explicit authorisation before files or data are examined;
• negotiate descriptions and others’ point of view;
• obtain explicit authorisation before using quotations;
• negotiate reports for various levels of publication;
• accept responsibility for maintaining confidentiality;
• assuming authorisation has been gained, retain the right to report your work;
• make your principles of procedures binding and known.

They also offer a range of observations in getting started in action research, including:
participate yourself in the action research process; get organised when initiating the
process; be content to start small; articulate the main theme and establish agreement
around it; establish a time-line that sets the time period for the work; arrange for
supportive work-in-progress discussions; be tolerant and supportive of all involved; be
persistent about recording and monitoring; plan for the longer haul in bigger issues of
change; register progress; write up throughout the project; be explicit about all progress
made (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988; 25-28).

6.6 Specific methods in action research

Based on the idea that action research is a broad process or a way of working rather than
a definitive technique (Green et al, 1995; 14), any discussion of method has tended to
revolve around what is perceived to be the most appropriate methods to utilise and a
range of positions of preference can be detected. Based on the assumption that action
research will inevitably take many forms (Reason and Bradbury (2001a; xxiv), some accept
the liberal view that it is inappropriate to associate particular methods to action research,
preferring a more open and flexible use of a range of potential methods (Edwards and
Talbot, 1997; 54; Bowling, 1997; 368; Green et al, 1995; 14). Baum (1996; 198) favours a
form of, ‘methodological eclecticism’ where the principle is to select ‘those methods that
are most likely to illuminate issues rather than being committed to any particular
methodology’ and Pawson and Tilley (1997) support the notion of a ‘combined’ or ‘plural’
research approach. Parry et al (2001) captures this eclecticism as involving circumstances,

‘where an attempt is made to make the best of both worlds by simultaneously

incorporating the reliability afforded by quantitative measurement, and celebrating
concepts such as user empowerment and participation’ (Parry et al, 2001; 216)

35
Swepson (1998), thus describes his position as one which ‘resonate(s) with the
practicalities of fitness for function, as a guide for choosing a methodology in a given
situation, rather than having a general commitment to one model’ and Baum (1998) also
offers a pragmatic perspective when suggesting that methods should be selected ‘which
provide the information necessary to provide an interpretation of the community
initiative that will satisfy the needs of the key players’ (Baum, 1998; 82 italics added) and
that resource availability will inevitably influence choice of method. As a specific example
of this pragmatism, to shape their evaluation of workplace health on an ‘action’ basis
Wilkinson et al (1997) deployed the varied criteria of: (i) being able to demonstrate an
association between interventions and outcome by use of a ‘semi-experimental design’;
(ii) achieving findings generalisable to other places; (iii) achieving measurable outcomes;
and (iv) establishing an external researcher as an objective and technical authority.

In an associated vein, Dadds and Hart (2001; 7) therefore suggest that action research can
potentially be based on pragmatic ‘methodological borrowing’ from traditional social
science where a range of methods are deployed and are perceived to generate the
necessary types of (varied) data; for example, quantitative demographic data through to
qualitative needs data on ‘people’ ‘locality and infrastructure’, ‘organisations and
services’. Winter (1996; 15-16) and Kemmis and McTaggart (1988; 100-105) lists a host of
more specific potential techniques, including anecdotal records, field notes, ecological
behavioural description, diary, documentary analysis, diaries and logs, observation,
questionnaire surveys, individual and group interviews and audio, video and pictorial
material.

Others adopt a more principled stance on the deployment of method. In general terms,
some propose fixed and unequivocal associations between disciplines and/or form of
activities and related research paradigms and methods. Springett (2001) for example
creates a strict paradigm distinction between health promotion and disease prevention in
‘principles and values’ (149)’ and goes on to contend that these in turn should shape the
nature of any research and evaluation in that area. She concludes that ‘participatory
evaluation is health promoting’ (Springett, 2001; 148). Similarly, Dadds and Hart (2001; 7)
state that,

‘we observed that the more mainstream, traditional research approaches do not
always suit the needs and available resources of practitioner research…….formal
knowledge of research methodology could, in some cases, be deskilling rather than
enabling’ (Dadds and Hart, 2001; 7).

This illustrates that action research method and ‘traditional’ research method are
considered as essentially different. A range of innovative methods have thus flourished
within the action research movement that contrast with the perceived methodological
rigour expected of some sections of the academic world (Dadds and Hart, 2001) and
which seek to ‘go beyond the collection of routinely available surface data….(to) a
complete method of inquiry which makes claims to provide both understanding of, and
guidance for, practical situations’ (Winter and Munn-Giddings, 2001; 15). For example,
these are (variously):

36
 • conversational analysis, linguistics, discourse analysis and narrative accounts
(Bradbury, 2001; Treleaven, 2001; 261; McNiff et al (1996);

• snake charts and annotated pictures (McNiff et al, 1996);

• creative arts and photography (Brinton Lykes, 2001);

• drama as ‘participatory and ‘inter-actional’ theatre to negotiate and construct

understandings and meanings’ (Mienczakowski and Morgan, 2001; 219);

• ‘large-group processes’ ‘events designed to engage representatives of an entire

system, whether it be an organization or a community, in thinking through and
planning change…the process is managed to allow all participants an opportunity
to engage actively in the planning’ Martin (2001; 201).

6.7 Views of formality in action research

A similar tension exists around perceptions of the need for formality in method. Perhaps,
in keeping with the desire to be significantly different to traditional modes, the
dominant view has tended to hold a preference for informality (as suggested above by
Winter and Munn-Giddings, 2001; 9; Quinn Patton, 1990). Similarly, McNiff et al (1996)
express concerns over the variety of cyclically based action research frameworks that have
been developed and feels that these are: overly rigid and prescriptive; could curb the
necessary innovation required in complex and evolving situations; could generally inhibit
investigative approaches; and tend to lead to observation and description rather than
explanation. This view would point to the need for action research to be seen more as an
‘art’ than a ‘science’ (Needle, 2000).

Whilst one of the main themes that runs through the action research literature is one of
pragmatism and informality, some draw attention to a danger in suggesting that because
action research tends to be rooted in relatively quick pragmatic response, that it cannot
have formal procedures or measures of quality. De Jong (2000; 57) for example,
recognises the need for process evaluation of action research, pointing out that ‘there is
good rapid action research and there is bad rapid action research’. Power (2000) also calls
for an ‘agreed format’ for action research with best practice standards from this field and
social science/epidemiology in order that ‘validation checks’ can occur (Power, 2000; 191).
Some (Winter and Munn-Giddings, 2001; 20-22; McNiff et al, 1996; 117; Power, 2000; 191)
have thus suggested explicitly defined frameworks, including in summary the following
practical steps:

• Developing infrastructure and formative evaluation involves both research and

administrative tasks involving identifying key partners, creating an appropriate steering
group and research team, assessing the general literature in the chosen area of
consideration, making broad decisions on the key directions of the appraisal and
fostering what Winter and Munn-Giddings (2001; 20-22) call a ‘culture of inquiry’ in the

37
 research settings. A key issue at this stage is the proposed scope of the work. Given the
potential for it to be undertaken in an indepth fashion, there is a perception that the
research focus needs to be tightly focused (Rhodes et al 2000; 5). In practical terms,
Trautmann and Burrows (2000; 60) suggest that at this preparatory stage there is also, ‘a
need for extensive co-operation between different agencies and organisations as a
prerequisite for developing effective assessment and interventions’. Likewise, and
introducing an idea that will be developed later around the scope for change that is
initially built into the action research process, Ong (2000) contends that there is a need
for explicit commitment of senior policy and decision makers to action, ‘they need to
demonstrate a willingness to be flexible in their policies so that a community
perspective can be inserted…without prior commitment any ‘rapid appraisal’ is doomed
to failure’ (Ong, 2000; 50).

• Research training and mapping exercise involves providing training in rapid assessment
techniques and the development of research tools.

• Data collection and analysis A number of features are highlighted. Primarily, the
significance of a research co-ordinator is seen to be essential here; ‘a conscientious local
project manager is essential…key workers need to be appointed at each site, for
collecting the data and passing it on to the central project manager…extensive field
notes should be collected alongside illustrative case studies’ Power (2000; 188). Winter
and Munn-Giddings (2001; 20-22) see data gathering as a collective enterprise by all
involved in ‘developmental workshops’ rather than formal data collection, allowing
differences to be highlighted and data analysis as a negotiated process where meaning
extends beyond superficial interpretations to look at the tensions in data and the
‘questioning of our spontaneous interpretations of events’.

6.8 Data analysis

The final phase points to more specific concerns associated with the analysis of data.
Fazey (2000) stresses the need for formality in the research process – the need for
research protocols, critical checks on methodology and use of experienced researchers
(Fazey, 2000; 173). Power (2000) also stresses the importance of continually analysing and
monitoring data, with, based on the negotiation of meaning with participants, an
assessment of the need for re-appraisal, additional data collection and/or obtaining
‘clearance’ for publication. One of the main quality concerns within this part of the
process (associated with the earlier discussion of the ‘problem of induction’) is the need
to maintain an open mind to what is contained in the data and the possible practical
action that is suggested by it. Sarkar (2000; 53) for example suggests that ‘the
investigator should keep his/her mind open and explore all the possibilities’ and Ong
(2000; 50) suggests the need for various qualitative standards, showing ‘evidence of
adequate description of theory and lessons learnt, evidence of quality data, relevance of
the context of topic presented with the study objectives, generation of new perspectives,
hypothesis and/or conceptual focus’. One of the important underpinning features
required to do this that is suggested is the need for the development of a strong research
team and effective training of all in the nature of what is generally being attempted as

38
well as specific research methods. Trautmann and Burrows (2000; 60) thus stress the need
for teamwork and in particular formal training - ‘a simple training course is not enough
to introduce the concepts underpinning rapid action research’. Likewise, Beebe (2000)
states that ‘intensive teamwork is especially critical for data collection based on
triangulation’ (Beebe, 2000; 29). Sampling is one specific issue that is raised within
discussion of action research method. Whilst not having the same demands as more
expansive approaches, most still stress the need for a formal consideration of sampling;
Needle et al (2000; 21) for example suggest that this should be based on two
complementary approaches: cultural expert interviews based on ethnographic principles
of probabilistic and non-probabilistic (guided) sampling and a formal consideration of
sample size and power.

39
7 Validity in action research
Coverage of the issue of validity in action research mirrors many of the debates that are
occurring in the wider research literature; in particular, the meaning of validity in a ‘post-
positivist’ context and specifically in relation to qualitative data (Kirk and Miller, 1986).
Conscious that some (e.g. McKeganey, 2000) may criticise action research for not being
‘valid’ in the sense that the data collected are highly specific and cannot be made
‘objective’ or generalisable, two broad responses have been forwarded, each of which are
based on a general assumption that action research creates new circumstances for
understanding validity (Bradbury and Reason, 2001; 447; Titchen, 1995; 40-41; Clarke et
al, 1993):

• a shift in our understanding of the general notion of ‘truth’ as a single objective thing
towards being seen as a multiple concept rooted in power and values (McNiff et al,
1996; 9);

• a reorientation of our vision of the role of the researcher as a detached and neutral
observer to one where interaction with participants and creation of subsequent realities
is inevitable.

In more specific terms, two more practical responses are offered as ways forward. First,
some propose that action research is not trying to ‘mimic’ other research types, the
nature of this type of work being seen as fundamentally different with validity and
generalisation being perceived to be of less importance. Bradbury and Reason (2001; 447)
thus propose that there is a need to ‘broaden the bandwidth’ of what is considered valid.
In this sense, McNiff et al (1996; 14) suggest that action research is ‘driven by researcher’s
professional values rather than methodological considerations’ and that action
researchers ‘tend to be working intentionally towards the implementation of ideas that
come from deep-seated values that motivate them to intervene’ (McNiff et al, 1996; 9-10).

The resultant view would thus stress (i) the need for research rigour to be balanced with
the requirement of relevance and (ii) holding an understanding that an action research
case relates only to that case and the question of whether someone’s views and the
subsequent analysis are technically ‘valid’ are seen as relatively irrelevant. Mays and Pope
(2000) term this a ‘relativist’ position.

Second and beyond this guarded position, a view is held that despite this distinctiveness,
efforts should be made to make the action research process and data analysis more
‘rigorous’. This view is clearly problematic and defined by potentially contradictory forces.
For example, McNiff et al (1996) reflect this position,

‘action researchers have to make sure the quality, value, and honesty of their
inquiries are not jeopardised by unrecognised bias and influence…..they have the
very tricky task ensuring their own bias does not colour their understanding of
others’ realities, at the same time as deliberately using it constructively to influence
the reality being studied (rather than attempting to minimise their influence, as
other qualitative researchers do)’

40
 ‘All actors must use their bias, beliefs and values in their action. If they did not they
would be unable to act….we were using our biases constructively to realise our
values in practice but we also wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of our actions
from participants’ perspectives, and represent their experiences faithfully in our
theoretical account. Alternating between there two positions requires a high level of
self-awareness and skill. By making their bias, beliefs, experience and knowledge
explicit, at least to themselves, action researchers are more able to suspend them to
grasp the multiple realities.’

By means of charting a way through this ground, many have proposed a series of
procedural steps that define ‘quality’ (Bradbury and Reason, 2001; 450) in general action
research procedure and specific data analysis (e.g. McNiff et al, 1996; 24-26; Titchen, 1995;
47; Winter, 1989). These steps can be summarised in terms of 3 broad tests of rigour-
assessing data from different sources (triangulation); achieving prolonged and persistent
observation in the field; obtaining participant and peer validation. In more detail, these
can be considered at the following levels.

At the level of principles, Winter (1989) suggests using reflexive and dialectical critique
[a critical, conscious and interactive exchange that Bravette Gordon (2001; 316) suggests,
seeks to, ‘break down self-assurance and self-contentment of commonsense, to
undermine the sinister confidence in the power of language and facts’] and Bradbury and
Reason (2001; 450-451) offer five broad areas of ‘quality’: as relational praxis ‘is the
action research group set up for (eventual) maximal participation?’; as a reflexive-
practical outcome ‘whether the research is ‘validated’ by participants’ new ways of
acting in light of the work?…people should be able to say ‘that was useful – I am using
what I learned’’; as plurality of knowing ‘allows us to re-see the world, or see through
taken-for-granted conceptual categories that are oppressive or no longer helpful’.

At the level of a practical ‘checklist’ Titchen (1995; 47) offers the following critical
points;

1. Have data been collected from people who are likely to understand what the action
researchers wanted to know?
2. Are the data collection methods appropriate for gaining the information required?
3. Have the researchers articulated the standards of rigor they set? How did they test
these standards?
4. Do they make explicit how they used their bias constructively in the action and how
they limited it to reduce distortion of inter-subjective and multiple realities?
5. Have they discussed the influence that their procedures have had on the participants’
responses? Were any measures taken to prevent, or to respond to, problems?
6. Is there evidence that the researcher created a climate of openness with participants?
7. Does the evidence support the claims the researcher is making?
8. Has a rich description been provided to help the reader decide whether the research
findings are useful, illuminating, relevant and applicable to their settings?
9. Do I, the reader, believe in and trust the outcomes of this study and see them as
relevant?

41
Finally, McNiff et al (1996; 24-26) see this quality process as occurring at different levels-
internal validation (individual level acceptance of truth); second external level validation
where co-practitioners accept truth and a further third level where a wider public acceptance
of truth is achieved. These levels contain different ‘types’ of validation: self, peer, up-liner,
client, academic, general public and notion of a validation group and seeking agreement
where validation broadly equates to achieving a consensus (McNiff et al, 1996; 108-109).

42
8 Ethical issues in action research
Three major positions can be detected on the ethics of action research.

First, there is a perception that it raises no additional or different ethical challenges to

those raised by ‘traditional research; Waterman (1995; 21) for example suggest that the
same ethical principles apply (that is, respect for participants, prevention of harm,
assurance of confidentiality or anonymity, and maintenance of privacy). In such
circumstances action research is not ethical per se and it would be possible to have ethical
traditional research and unethical action research.

Second, as a product of its inclusive and emancipatory nature, there is an implicit

assumption within some elements of the action research literature that it is either in itself
more ethical or more cautiously is undertaken on stronger ethical grounds than other less
participatory forms of research (Williams, 1995). Within this context, a number of writers
have proposed a range of rather idealistic and aspirational ethical guidelines: for
example, Winter (1996; 16-17) proposes the principles that action research should aspire
towards including a situation of ‘transparency’ where all participants should be involved
in the formulation of a consensus on the nature of the research problem, the choice of
methods, subsequent data analysis; and McNiff et al (1996; 34) identify ‘keeping good
faith’ as an ethical talisman and list various steps that would be involved in an ‘ethical’
action research project, including: negotiating access sensitively and honestly; promising
confidentiality of information, identity and data; ensuring the right to withdraw; and
keeping all informed at regular points in the work.

Third, beyond these aspirations, on the basis that by its nature action research is bound
to encounter ethical issues, many have begun to provide a more thorough analysis of the
ethical implications of activities associated with action research (Balogh and Beattie,
1987). Fundamentally, and contrary to the perception promoted above of an
unproblematic relationship, Lincoln (2001; 127) contends there has been to this point,
little specific ethical guidance for action researchers and more significantly, she suggests
that the complexity of this type of work raises ethical concerns not encountered in
‘conventional’ research work; in other words a contrary view to that which suggests that
action research is implicitly ethical. A range of particular features have been identified as
being challenging (Macaulay et al, 1999; Edwards and Talbot, 1997; Williams, 1995;
Meyer, 1993):

8.1 Achieving informed consent

Unlike the clear separation that exists between external researchers and research subjects
in more traditional forms of research, resulting in unambiguous lines of communication,
the mixed roles that action researchers take (variously, researcher, co-volunteer, co-worker
and research participant) can potentially lead to circumstances where it is difficult to gain
‘genuine’ consent. The principal claim is that, due to the close relationship, there is the
prospect of ‘insider’ action researchers still being seen as academics and ‘threatening’
(Hart and Bond, 2000; 101) and research participants feeling obliged to conform with
‘grudging input and fear of reprisals’ (Williams, 1995; 54).
43
 Additionally, there is concern that the shifting focus of action research can result in
participants being unclear as to what they are consenting; Meyer (1993; 1070) for
example proposes that ‘informed consent is not really possible when the nature of the
proposed change is unknown’. Williams, (1995; 54) does however refute this by
countering that this critique only holds if gaining consent is seen as a ‘one off’ action and
that the problem can be overcome by reviewing and renegotiating consent within the
cyclical process.

8.2 Maintaining confidentiality and anonymity

Meyer (1993; 1069-1071) and Waterman (1995; 21) suggest that localised ‘case study’
action research can often threaten confidentiality and anonymity. In particular, they
identify the problem of gaining consent to publish accounts provided by participants and
being clear of the basis on which the data were volunteered. They claim that this can be
a grey area when deciding what quotations should be used in that, in the ambiguous
researcher-researched relationship described above, participants may proffer data that
are revealing but not necessarily for ‘public consumption’. Again, these difficulties can be
addressed by gaining ‘clearance’ from participants over publication of findings and by
negotiations about ways in which potentially identifying information is presented
(Simons, 1987). However, researchers do need to recognise that the exercise of these
rights may sometimes result in accounts that are less than complete.

8.3 Handling relationships and ensuring emancipatory, democratic or ‘fair’

outcomes

The general nature of action research potentially introduces circumstances where the
relationship between researcher and researched is fundamentally dissimilar to that
encountered in other forms of research. In his account of case study research, Stake
(1995) captures these conditions;

‘many qualitative studies are personalistic studies. Impersonal issues applied to

carefully observed human beings become personal issues. Privacy is always at risk.
Entrapment is regularly on the horizon as the researcher, although a dedicated non-
interventionist, raises questions and options previously not considered by the
respondent. A tolerable frailty of conduct nearby becomes questionable ethic when
it appears in distant narrative. Some of us ‘go native’, accommodating to the
viewpoint and valuation of the people at the site-then revert, reacting less in their
favour when back again with academic colleagues’ (Stake, 1995; 46)

Ensuring participant endorsement of research data and interpretation as well as an ability

to reflectively seek alternative explanations are ethics that are prominent in efforts to
ensure validity in general qualitative research (Mays and Pope, 2000). A view is held that,
given the practical nature of action research and the potential for tangible outcomes, the
significance of these ethical principles are greatly magnified in that research may have
real consequences for wide groups of people (Webb, 1996; Waterman, 1995; 21). In
general, there is concern that the basic capacity for participants to be involved in action
research may be limited; for example, Meyer (1995) offers the following discouraging
assessment,
44
 ‘Modern definitions of action research, such as Carr and Kemmis emphasise the ‘self
reflective’ nature of action research and encourage participants to actively engage
not only in the process of change, but also in the research process. My experience of
action research…….. suggests that this may be more idealistic than realistic in
practice……participants did not show a natural inclination towards being self-
reflective, and a lack of time available for multidisciplinary discussion meant it was
extremely difficult to develop greater involvement in the project. Participants found
it hard to participate in the changes they had identified as being needed without
being asked to engage more in monitoring the process of change through self-
reflective practices’ (Meyer, 1995; 35)

Parry et al (2001; 217) is concerned for the consequences of this. He suggests that
participation in any action research process can end up being potentially tokenistic and
ultimately disempowering as people have to ‘co-operate with the very power structures
which they set out to oppose’. Here, the view is that the initial scope for the research is
determined by those who already hold power, thus undermining ownership and limiting
action. Also, once locked into a particular problem construction, these groups may be
required to conform to relatively modest solutions (Petersen and Lupton, 1996). Similarly,
there is a concern that within the context of ‘practitioner research’, action research can
be used to unilaterally enhance professional status (for example, possessing a critical and
distinct knowledge bases, having degrees of empowerment, confidence, autonomy) in
circumstances where it is being eroded (Edwards and Talbot, 1997; 65). Whilst this is
obviously not problematic in itself, Hart (1996; 456) and Murray and Lawrence (2000; 9-
10) raise the possibility that such work will result in a ‘conservative individualisation’ of
practice and professional gain rather than group processes that generate critical actions
that may possibly detract from the status of practitioners.

In such circumstances, two specific features are made critical:

The general processes by which new ‘truths’ are constructed: Perhaps the implict
assumption within the action research literature is that the new insights discovered are
more valid and superior to those generated by other less participative forms of research.
This is particularly relevant given the tendency for action research to be associated with
relatively instrumental functions like needs assessment and intervention evaluation.
However, Williams (1995; 50-51) questions the assumption that such certainty is possible
by proposing that in uncritically creating new truths that may be as partial or oppressive
as others, action research can unintentionally mimic many of the features of ‘positivist’
research (Webb, 1996). Potter (1996; 113) is cautious about believing in a simple
transparency of data and descriptions in emancipatory research recognising: (i) that views
come from particular ‘stakes’ (i.e. they are not simply neutral or better); (ii) that ‘fact
construction’ occurs within language (narrative, metaphor, rhetoric) and (iii) that
attempts are always made to construct corroboration and achieve consensus within
competing groups. Furthermore, he and Gibson (1985) identify the problem of action
research truths themselves not being amenable to further analysis, as it would undermine
the overall explanation and the drive towards simple solutions. For example, Gibson
(1985; 60) states that action research ‘rejects objectivity, yet privileges its own view of
reality’ and Potter uses Woolgar and Pawluch’s (1985) notion of ‘ontological
gerrymandering’ to describe this tendency (Potter, 1996; 184);

45
 ‘the successful social problems explanation depends upon making problematic the
truth status of certain states of affairs selected for analysis and explanation, while
backgrounding or minimising the possibility that the same problems apply to the
assumptions upon which the analysis depends. By means of ontological
gerrymandering, proponents of definitional explanations place a boundary between
assumptions which are to be understood as (ostensibly) problematic and those which
are not’ (Woolgar and Pawluch, 1985; 216)

As such, some have sought to establish a more cautious and falsifiable approach to action
research conclusions, which sees them as another partial construction of a problem and a
solution that is in itself open to further scrutiny (Weiskopf and Laske, 1996; 121-129). In
more practical terms, Winter (1989) proposes that the validity of interpretations should
be tested again in action and that this will generate more questions/tensions with any
solutions being seen as one tentative step forward, not a final answer. In a similar vein,
Bradbury and Reason (2001) see action research as attempting to shift orientation from,

‘a concern with idealist questions in search of ‘Truth’ to concern for engagement,

dialogue, pragmatic outcomes and an emergent, reflexive sense of what is
important……truth results from an emanicpatory process, one which emerges as
people strive towards conscious and reflexive emancipation, speaking, reasoning and
co-ordinating action together unconstrained by coercion’ (Bradbury and Reason,
2001; 447)

An associated concern is that a clear consensus cannot always be achieved and that
proposed solutions may be only partially representative of the collective view (Webb,
1996). The core assumption that drives much of this work is that some form of consensus
can be achieved via a relatively simple and technical process of extensive data collection
and triangulation. Waterman et al (2001; 13) for example feel that this approach ‘allows
participants to explore practical and theoretical understandings from a variety of
perspectives, for example, in different settings or with different people, that could serve
to increase the general application of the outcomes of the process’.

Whilst this may be possible in some cases, many recognise that often, there may be
significant conflict in the way that different individuals and groups define problems and
solutions and that achieving a simple consensus may be impossible. Waterman et al (2001;
12) point to the need to recognise that action research inevitably involves the
investigation of difference and inevitably means that a range of perspectives need to be
considered. Friedman (2000) suggests, ‘it is not enough simply to say, ‘try to find a
consensus plan’, because often no consensus is possible’ (Friedman, 2000; 38); Whyte
(1991; 132) feels that this ‘fusion model’ can lead to ‘an over estimation of the possibility
and value of consensus’ and Weiskopf and Laske (1996) conclude,

‘consensus-oriented research tends to overrate both the possibility and value of

consensus and mutual understanding of the problems…thereby it tends to oversee
that power is reproduced in various ways rather than reduced’ (Weiskopf and Laske,
1996; 122)

46
Related to the critique described above of new inappropriate or partial truths being
created by action research, Webb (1996) proposes the notion of ‘group privileging’ where
a group mentality produces a popular yet inappropriate solution, particularly when
minority views are discounted. In response, Weiskopf and Laske (1996) contend that the
action researcher should openly reflect upon the political nature of any work and the
potential for conflict and Macaulay et al (1999) propose a shift from ethical frameworks
with an individual and consensual orientation towards others of a general ‘social
contract’ or specific ‘covenantal’ or ‘familial’ ethics where, in addition to individual
consent, attention is paid to collective expression and in particular tensions and
disagreements. They offer two such guiding frameworks (National Health and Research
Council, 2001; Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies, 1997).

The relationship that exists between researcher and researched: Within some
elements of the wider research literature, this relationship is normally seen as one where
power is simply transferred from researcher to a wider range of participants. Williams
(1995; 54) questions the possibility of achieving this: citing, ‘collaborative approaches
assume that research is done with and for people rather than on people, but I would
question to what extent this is possible in reality’. Likewise, Meyer (1993; 1069-1070)
confesses that ‘I hoped to redress the unequal balance of power in the researcher-
participant relationship…I would argue however that it was not possible to redress this
power relationship in reality’. The point being made here is that it is impossible for
researchers to achieve a powerless and naive position [what Blackburn (2000; 10) calls
‘ideological neutrality’] where power is actually transferred and where a position of ‘not
knowing’ within experienced researchers is achieved (Whitelaw, 2000; Salmon, 1996;
McLaughlin, 1996; Stacey, 1991). Thus, Meyer (1993; 1071) recognises that even when
egalitarian outcomes are sought, action researchers are still trying to actively ‘facilitate
change in others’. On the other hand, Blackburn (2000) argues that a power imbalance
may not necessarily exist and that it could be a patronising to suggest that groups are
‘powerless’.

Such disguised power is consequently seen as problematic; Meyer (1993; 1070) sees it as ‘a
deeper, more dangerous form of exploitation’; Salmon (1996; 211) contends that ‘the
beguiling rhetoric of openness, participation and empowerment can act to disguise
inequalities in research’ and as such, Stacey (1991; 113) is concerned that participatory
research ‘may expose subjects to greater risks of exploitation than the more positivist,
abstract and objectivist research methods’.

47
9. Action research and ‘community’ health initiatives
Action research has emerged within several specific fields; in particular, education (Stenhouse,
1975; Elliot, 1991; Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988, 1990), nursing (Hart and Bond, 1995), social
work (Childs, 2001; Fuller and Petch, 1995) and community development for health (Senge and
Scharmer, 2001; 240; Lawrence, 2001; 146; Lees and Smith, 1975).

Some have suggested that the particular features of each of these arenas may lead to
different types of action research (for example, Elliot, 1991; 94 feels that schools typically offer
a more constrained organisational environment than say communities and, that the concerns
of nurses are different to those of teachers) and that some areas may be more conducive to
action research (Macauley et al, 1999). But the review suggests that the predominant tendency
in each of these areas is still one of eclecticism. That is, it would be wrong to imply that
innovative action research only occurs in circumstances that are considered ‘conducive’ and
that all action research in these circumstances is innovative. Consequently, a range of
contrasting approaches can be identified in a range of contrasting circumstances (Reason and
Bradbury, 2001; xxv).

Whilst avoiding the implication that the site or context of action research (e.g. education,
health, communities etc.) has significant influence, in order to inform the development of the
resource, it is still important to consider the breadth of possible deployment of an action
research approach in different contexts. The predominant view has been that there is a natural
affinity between ‘community’, ‘community development for health’ and ‘action research’ and a
long practical history exists (Winter and Munn-Giddings, 2001; 33; Green et al, 1995). Indeed,
Lewin’s original work was concerned with deploying action research to improve race relations
and addressing economic and social discrimination against minority groups. Winter and Munn-
Giddings, (2001; 33) also describe similar early work of John Collier a United States
government civil servant responsible for policy on native Americans. Again, Collier is seen to
attempt to challenge various racist policies against this group via action research processes.

Whilst it may not always necessarily be the case [due to the diversity in values and practice of
the areas; expressed by for example, Beattie (1986) in relation to community development and
as has already been recognized throughout this review by Hart and Bond (1995)], there
potentially exists a high degree of congruence between the spirit of particular elements and
expressions of the respective movements. Winter and Munn-Giddings (2001; 35) define this
interaction as community action research being a ‘combination of research, adult education
and socio-political action’. The movements are clearly broad, complex and diverse though for
summary purposes a number of key common features can be established:

• In relation to initial focus, there exists a common desire to prioritise work with
deprived
and disadvantaged groups and subsequently to address common needs and concerns as
identified as important by people themselves (Freeman, et al 1997);

• In relation to founding perspectives, health is seen as a product of a range of

influences (particularly social) and in general terms, for action to preferably be of a
collective nature that draws upon social networks (Smithies and Webster, 1998);

48
• In relation to developmental processes, both follow a cyclical ‘learning’ course of
experience, reflection, analysis, and action (see Smithies and Webster, 1998; 93);

• With respect to relationships, there is an aspiration to establish more equitable links

between communities, professionals and statutory agencies and researchers (Lawrence,
2001; 146; Senge and Scharmer, 2001; 240);

• Finally, in relation to expected outcomes, there is a desire to bring about changes at

various levels - empowered individuals and communities, increased participation in
decision making processes, fostering partnerships and learning between sectors and
groups, contribution to tacking health inequalities, building community infrastructures
and improved services, etc. (Winter and Munn-Giddings, 2001; 34). In particular, process
or ways of working are considered to be inherently linked to outcomes, so that the
process is important in its own right; for example, Macaulay et al (1999; 775) suggest
that ‘the research can itself be health promoting by enhancing resiliencies that exist in
all communities….. especially in disadvantaged communities, it assists with self
empowerment by removing barriers and promoting environments within which
communities can increase their capacities to identify and solve their own problems’.

In more specific terms, community development for health and action research come
together in two particular areas (see Smithies and Webster (1998) chapters 9 and 10):

(i) the assessment of health needs whereby more open, equitable and varied
forms of research act as a basis of identifying priorities that subsequently leads to
action;

(ii) evaluation wherein evaluative research attempts to access more sensitive and
appropriate data that reflect the indicators defined as significant by the community
(Judd, Frankish and Moulton, 2001).

So, in summary these examples illustrate the political and critical elements of
participatory action research (Green et al, 1995; 9) that tend to be prominent when
undertaken in a community development context; in particular the challenging of
amongst others, inequality, alienation, powerlessness and individualization (Lawrence,
2001; Rappert, 1997; Goolagong et al, 2000). As such, a critical, value driven and
emancipatory ethic tends to inform this work where research and researchers act to
challenge and change existing circumstances or patterns of provision, facilitate capacity
building in the community and act as an advocate for their concerns (Carlise, 2001).

Beyond these positive aspirations a range of critical concerns that parallel those identified
earlier within the general action research literature have been raised. These are
summarised below:

• There need not be a binding affinity between community health and action research
and all community based research topics need not be pursued within an action research
approach; other forms of research may generate more appropriate or powerful data
and insights (Judd, Frankish and Moulton, 2001; Sanson Fisher et al, 1996; Allison and
Rootman, 1996; Poland, 1996);

49
• In a related sense, community development for health spans a diverse range of
founding activities (Beattie, 1986) with differing motives and expectations and many of
these may not necessarily be conducive to action research (Labonte and Laverack, 2001;
113; Bailie, 1975; 170);

• As a result of initially restricted parameters or superficial political education and

analysis, some community based action research can lead to a localised and politically
obscured understanding of the dynamics of circumstances (Bailie, 1975; 170);

• As such, action research may not necessarily be the only appropriate or most effective
way of practically bringing about change or dealing with poverty, for example, Green et
al, (1995; 17) offer a range of options for activity when the concepts of ‘health
promotion’ and ‘participatory action research’ are combined and establish that applied
heath promotion action can occur independent of any formal research component;

• the difficulty of professionals and researchers truly transferring power (Valla, 1994);

• the potential to over-estimate the potential that the community has to contribute to an
active action research process [in relation to time, energy, skill, ability] (Poland, 1996);

• the difficulties of gaining community representation and consensus and the potential to
overestimate the prospect of achieving any action or action that satisfies a significant
proportion of the community (Smith, 1975; 193).

50
10. A form of conclusion
The review has sought to establish a descriptive base for action research (definitions,
approaches, methods and means of analysis) and to some extent this functional material
will form an important part of the resource in that it will provide guidance to those
wishing to undertake action research. In many ways this is the easy task. However, a
simple one-dimensional and descriptive account of action research neglects a host of (at
least) equally significant issues that always underpin research activities and processes and
it is clear that action research cannot simply be seen as a technical exercise. These issues
include, the significance of research values, the existence of differentiated types of action
research practice (and the associated question of whether there exists a hierarchy of
preference) and subsequently the challenge of having to match research questions to the
most appropriate approach or methodology. This wider view also raises a number of
critical issues associated with the development of action research that require
consideration. This conclusion will consider these issues with a view to providing a
strategy for developing the general nature of the resource.

Perhaps the most fundamental issue centres on the question of whether the resource
should, in relative terms, adopt a fixed or flexible characterisation of action research. The
literature still reflects concern over what is perceived to be the imprecision of the term
‘action research’; for example, Holter and Schwartz-Barcott (1993; 301) talk of
‘terminological anarchism’ in the field and Waterman et al, (2001; 11) feel that ‘an
embracing definition of action research remains elusive’. There are however two
contrasting ways of progressing out of this ambiguous position. For some, there appears
to be a desire to carve out an ‘exclusive’ definition that seeks to identify specific and
fixed features (values, approaches then methods) that conform to the principles of action
research and more importantly to rule out those that are deemed not to; Holter and
Schwartz-Barcott (1993; 302 italic added) for example, talk of the need for a ‘systematic
identification of, or debate about, the core characteristics of action research’.

Such views lead to a rather universal and judgemental appraisal of what could be
considered as ‘authentic’ action research and those forms that do not reach this ideal;
Waterman et al, (2001; 12) term this as a tendency ‘to reify and idealise’ action research
practice. This position also implies a rather fixed view of action research always being
associated with particular approaches (case study), degrees of participation (high),
methods (interviewing) and data (qualitative) [Winter and Munn-Giddings (2001; 9)].

Reason and Bradbury (2001; xxiv) thus offer the view that, ‘the term ‘action research’ has
been used in so many different ways that it has lost some of its original weight’ and they
protest that it now includes, ‘positivist research in a ‘field’ context….and relatively
uncritical organisational consulting based on information gathering and feedback’. As
well as the desire to be exclusive, the notion of ‘original weight’ suggests the existence of
a purer and better history where action research offered an oppositional alternative to
the predominance of ‘positivist’ research and all the features typically associated with it.
How defensive one needs to be in these circumstances perhaps depends upon one’s
reading of the nature of the political climate in which action research currently exists. In
many respects, it could be argued that the values associated with action research are still

51
relatively marginal and that specific political developments (e.g. the formalisation of
‘research governance’ within the NHS) are leading to relatively hostile circumstances. As
such, a strong espousal and pronouncement of core action research principles would be
perceived as necessary. Some would also argue that, whilst such oppositional perspectives
were appropriate to a particular era, such has been the success in establishing the
significance of variously, qualitative research, case study research and action research
within ‘mainstream’ research that there is less of a need to maintain an exclusive and
opposition stance (Robson, 1993). At a practical level, as has already been established, this
tolerance has fed into a greater confidence and willingness to adopt a more pragmatic
approach to action research that does not necessarily feel obliged to comply with specific
definitional or methodological constraints. Of a range of types of action research,
(Waterman et al, 2001; 15) thus contend that, ‘no attempt is made to say which is best –
it will depend on the circumstances of the individuals concerned and the aim of the
action research’ and conclude that, ‘there was no evidence to support a hierarchy of
action research, in that no single application of action research appeared to be more
successful than any other.’

Such a position could result in varying responses; from a fundamental decision that an
action research approach is not appropriate to the research question being considered to
a willingness to combine a range of research elements in a way that ‘suits the
circumstances’ (for example, within the context of ‘participatory research’, Parry et al,
(2001) use a quasi-experimental design within a community based smoking intervention
and Wilkinson et al, 1997 use a ‘semi-experimental design’ in their action research based
evaluation of a workplace health promotion programme).

Consequently, a more inclusive and permissive approach has developed at the following
levels:

• an acceptance that research activity should not be locked into one single approach to
the exclusion of others; the features associated with action research (participation,
bridging the theory practice gap) could be fulfilled by means other than research
(Prasad, 2001) and significant and appropriate action/outcomes could be achieved via
other forms of research (Baum, 1998);

• the recognition that the selection of the broad action research approach and
subsequent methods will occur from a relatively wide choice as defined by the most
extensive of typologies (what Waterman et al, 2001; 11 call a ‘multidimensional matrix’)
and in relation to (i) the types of knowledge being addressed and research question
posed (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; 112); (ii) the situational or organisational capacity to
support and sustain an action research approach (Beattie, 1991; 192) and (iii) the
individual researcher preference (Senge and Scharmer, 2001). Appendix 1 offers a range
of interactive typologies that seeks to define this ground;

• a stronger emphasis on a more balanced consideration of ‘strengths and weaknesses’

and broad ‘guidelines’ of good practice where action researchers can simultaneously be
supportive yet constructively critical of the general approach and their specific practice;
Waterman et al (2001; 41) suggest that ‘strengths, limitations and complexity of action
research need to be widely communicated so that they can be considered, and

52
 appropriate strategies identified prior to the commencement of any action research
project’; in this respect, Waterman et al (2001) offer an assessment of the ‘strengths and
weaknesses’ associated with the features of action research (appendix 1); ‘guidance for
assessing action research proposals and projects’ (appendix 2) and Green et al (1995)
propose Guidelines and Categories for Classifying Participatory Research Projects in
Health Promotion (appendix 3);

• a desire to dispense with what Walker (1995) calls ‘research ‘factions’ with disciplinary
sub-cultures’ and a move towards assimilating research concepts around common
problems with a matching of appropriate approaches to questions (Rosenfield, 1992;
1351); to achieve this McKeganey (2000; 17) feels, ‘there is a need for a tighter
specification as to the kinds of research questions that can be explored using the
methodology’.

Such views suggest the need for the inclusion (or signposting to) a wider range of
materials in the resource that go beyond the simple and/or narrow stereotypical
techniques of action research, including: strategic considerations that would shape initial
choices and the matching of appropriate methods to questions; based on the assumption
that action research could be based on a wider and more generic research base, a wide
range of supporting method resources (high quality action research shares a significant
common base with high quality general research); materials that will promote critical and
reflective analyses of the approach.

In this sense, three general areas may be significant in flexibly mapping possibilities and
forming logical links between initial assessment and ultimate action:

• Assessment of research needs and organisational circumstances/potential (see section

6.2).
• Choice from action research typologies (see section 5.3).
• Required operational skills and resources (see sections 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6).

53
11. Bibliography
Allen W. (2000) The role of action research in environmental management. NRM-change links
working paper No. 3 June 2000.

Allison K. and Rootman I. (1996) Scientific rigor and community participation in health
promotion research: are they compatible? Health Promotion International Vol. 11 (4); 333-340.

Antonovsky A. (1996) The salutogenic model as theory to guide health promotion. Health
Promotion International Vol. 11(1); 11-18.

Archibald, C., Siushansian J., Jayaraman C., Sutherland D. (2000) RAR hath wrought….Hobson’s
choice? International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11, 2; 41-44.

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

Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies (1997) Ethical principles for the
conduct of research in the north. Ottawa: ACUNS,
(www.yukoncollege.yk.ca/~agraham/ethics.htm).

Baillie S. (1975) Community Development as a Process of Emergence in Lees R. and Smith G.

(eds.) Action research and Community Development Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Balogh R. and Beattie A. (1987) Performance Indicators in Nursing Education: Final Report of a
Feasibility Study University of London Institute of Education.

Balogh R. (1993) Performance monitoring for nurse and midwife training institutions: some
problems for the conduct of action research. unpublished PhD thesis University of London
Institute of Education.

Barker C. (1996) The Health Care Policy Process Sage, London.

Baum F. (1996) Research to support health promotion based on community development

approaches in Colquhoun D. and Kelleher A. (eds.) Health Research in Practice Vol. 2 Chapman
and Hall, London.

Baum F. (1998) Measuring effectiveness in community-based health promotion in Davies J.K.

and Macdonald G. (eds.) Quality, Evidence and Effectiveness in Health Promotion; striving for
certainties. Routledge, London.

Beattie A. (1986) Community Development for Health: from practice to theory? Radical Health
Promotion No. 4; 12-19.

Beattie A. (1991) Knowledge and control in health promotion: a test case for social policy and
social theory in Gabe J., Calnan M., Bury M. (eds.) The Sociology of the Health Service.
Routledge, London.

54
Beattie A. (2001) Education for systems change: a key resource for radical action on health in
Munro J., Adams L. and Amos M. (eds.) Working for Health – Politics and Practice Sage,
London.

Beebe J. (2000) Rapid assessment and response; sound methodology for producing timely
responses. International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11, 2; 29-31.

Bell E. (2001) Infusing Race into the US Discourse on Action Research in Reason P. and Bradbury
H. (eds.) Action Research: participative enquiry and practice. Sage, London .

Bennington G. (1975) The Flaw in the Pluralist Heaven-Changing Strategies in the Coventry
CDP (1975) in Lees R. and Smith G. (eds.) Action research and Community Development
Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Beresford (1992) Researching citizen involvement: a collaborative or colonising experience? in

Barnes M and Wistow G. (eds.) Researching User Involvement Nuffield Institute of Health
Services Studies University of Leeds Press.

Beresford (1999) Making participation possible: movements of disabled people and psychiatric
survivors in Jordan T and Lent A. (eds.) Storming the Millennium: the new politics of change
Lawrence and Wishart, London

Beresford P. and Turner M. (2001) The Citizen’s Commission: A UK case study of service-user-
controlled research in Winter R. and Munn-Giddings C. (eds.) A Handbook for Action Research
in health and Social Care Routledge, London.

Blackburn J. (2000) Understanding Paulo Freire: reflections on the origins, concepts and
possible pitfalls of his educational approach Community Development Journal Vol. 35 (1); 3-15.

Blaxter L., Hughes C. and Tight M. (1996) How to Research. OU Press, Milton Keynes.

Bowling A. (1997) Research methods in Health: Investigating Health and Health Services. OU
Press, Milton Keynes.

Bradbury H. and Reason P. (2001) Conclusions: Broadening the Bandwidth of Validity: Issues
and Choice-points for Improving the Quality of Action Research in Reason P. and Bradbury H.
(eds.) Action Research: participative enquiry and practice. Sage, London.

Bradbury H. (2001) Learning with The Natural Step: Action Research to Promote Conversations
for Sustainable Development in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Action Research: participative
enquiry and practice. Sage, London.

Bravette Gordon G. (2001) Transforming Lives: Towards Bicultural Competence in Guatemala in

Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and
Practice. Sage, London.

55
Brinton Lykes M. (2001) Creative Arts and Photography in Participatory Action Research in
Guatemala in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Handbook of Action Research: Participative
Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London.

Burns D., Hambleton R. and Hoggett P. (1994) The Politics of Decentralisation: Revitalising
Local Democracy. MacMillan, London.

Carlisle S. (2001) Health promotion, advocacy and health inequalities: a conceptual framework.
Health Promotion International Vol. 15/4; 369-376 .

Carr W. and Kemmis S. (1986) On Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action
Research. Falmer Press, London.

Checkland P. and Scholes J. (2000) Soft Systems. Methodology in Action. Wiley, Chichester.

Childs V. (2001) What does an elephant look like? Problems encountered on a journey to
innovation in child protection in Winter R. and Munn-Giddings C. (eds.) A Handbook for
Action Research in Health and Social Care. Routledge, London

Clarke J., Dudley P. and Edwards A. (1993) Ways of presenting and critiquing action research
reports. Educational Action Research Vol. 1 (3); 490-492.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in Education Routledge, London.

Cornwell A. (1996) Towards participatory practice: participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and the
participatory process in de Koning K. and Martin M. (eds.) Participatory research in health. Zen
Books, London.

Dadds M. and Hart S. (2001) Doing Practitioner Research Differently Routledge/Falmer, London.

De Jong W. (2000) The politics of rapid assessment and response. International Journal of Drug
Policy Vol. 11, 2; 55-58.

East L. and Robinson J. (1994) Change in process: bringing about change in health care
through action research Journal of Clinical Nursing Vol. 3; 57-61

Edwards A. and Talbot R. (1997)The Hard-pressed researcher. Longman, London

Elliot J. (1991) Action Research For Educational Change. OU Press, Milton Keynes

Fazey C. (2000) From kidnapping to corruption: some trials and tribulations in the
implementation of rapid assessment studies. International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11, 2;
169-179

Flood R. (2001) The Relationship of ‘Systems Thinking to Action Research in Reason P. and
Bradbury H. (eds.) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage,
London.

56
Freeman R., Gillam S., Shearin C. and Pratt J. (1997) Community Development and Involvement
in Primary Care. Kings Fund, London.

Friedman S. (2000) What hath RAR wrought? International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11, 2;
37—39.

Friedman V. (2001) Action Science: Creating Communities of Inquiry in Communities of Practice

in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and
Practice Sage, London.

Fuller R. and Petch A. (1995) Practitioner Research: the reflexive social worker. OU Press, Milton
Keynes.

Gaventa J. and Cornwall A. (2001) Power and Knowledge in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.)
Action Research: participative enquiry and practice. Sage, London

Gibson R. (1985) Critical Times for Action Research Cambridge Journal of Education Vol. 15 (1);
59-60/.

Goolagong, P., Hughes, I., Khavarpour, F., and Russell, C. (2000). Koori Action Research in
Community Health. Action Research E-Reports, 1. Available at:
http://www.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow/arer/001.htm.

Greig A., Kershnar S. (2000) When enough is enough; rapid assessment and response in the
context of injecting drug use and the HIV. epidemic International Journal of Drug Policy Vol.
11, 2; 25-28.

Green L., George M., Daniel M., Frankish C., Herbert C., Bowie W. and O’Neill M. (1995) Study
of Participatory Research in Health Promotion: Review and Recommendations for the
Development of Participatory Research in Health Promotion in Canada The Royal Society of
Canada.

Greene J. (1994) Qualitative Program Evaluative in Denzin N. and Lincoln Y. (eds.) Handbook of
Qualitative Research. Sage, London.

Grundy, S. (1982). Three Modes Of Action Research. As cited in Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R.
(eds.) (1988). The Action Research Reader. Deakin University Press, Geelong.

Grundy, S., (1987) Curriculum: Product or Praxis. The Falmer Press, London.

Guba E. and Lincoln Y. (1994) Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research in Denzin N. and
Lincoln Y. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Sage, London.

Hart E. and Bond M. (1995) Action Research for Health and Social Care: a guide to practice. OU
Press, Milton Keynes.

Hart E. and Bond M. (1996) Making sense of action research through the use of a typology.
Journal of Advanced Nursing Vol. 23; 152-159.

57
Hart E. (1996) Action research as a professionalising strategy: issues and dilemmas. Journal of
Advanced Nursing Vol. 23; 454-461.

Hart E. and Bond M. (2000) Using action research in Gomm R. and Davies C. (eds.) Using
Evidence in Health and Social Care. Sage/OU Press, Milton Keynes.

Health Education Board for Scotland (1999) The Research Strategy for the Health Education
Board for Scotland 1999-2004 HEBS, Edinburgh.

Heron J. and Reason P. (2001) The Practice of Co-operative Inquiry: Research ‘with’ rather than
‘on’ people in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Action Research: participative enquiry and
practice. Sage, London.

Hills M. (2001) Using Co-operative Inquiry to Transform Evaluation of Nurse Students’ Clinical
Practice in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Action Research: participative enquiry and practice.
Sage, London.

Hirschon Weiss C. and Wittrock B. (1991) Social Sciences and Modern States in Wagner P.,
Hirschon Weiss C., Wittrock B. and Wollmann H. (eds.) Social Sciences and Modern States:
National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Holter I.M. and Schwartz-Barcott D. (1993) Action research: what is it? How has it been used
and how can it used in nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing Vol. 18; 298-304.

Jennings L. and Graham A. (1996) Exposing Discourses Through Action Research in Zuber-
Skerritt O. (ed.) New Directions in Action Research Falmer. Press, London.

Judd J., Frankish J., Moulton G. (2001) Setting standards in the evaluation of community-based
programmes-a unifying approach. Health Promotion International Vol. 16 (4); 367-380.

Judge K. and Bauld L. (2001) Strong theory, flexible methods: evaluating complex community-
based initiatives Critical Public Health Vol. 11 (1)’; 19-38

Kemmis, S., and McTaggart, R. (1988) The action research planner (3rd edition). Deakin
University.

Kemmis S. and McTaggart R. (1990) Participatory action research in Denzin N. and Lincoln Y.
(eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, London.

Kemmis S. (1996) Emancipatory Aspirations in a Postmodern Era in Zuber-Skerritt O. (ed.) New

Directions in Action Research. Falmer Press, London.

Kemmis S. (2001) Exploring the Relevance of Critical Theory for Action Research: Emancipatory
Action Research in the Footsteps of Jurgen Habermas in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.)
Action Research: participative enquiry and practice. Sage, London.

Kirk J. and Miller M. (1986) Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Sage Qualitative
Research Methods Series. Sage, London.

58
Labonte, R. and Laverack, G (2001). ‘Capacity Building in Health Promotion: For Whom? And
For What Purpose?’ Critical Public Health Vol. 11 (2).

Lawrence R. (2001) Community involvement in a bid for urban regeneration funds in Winter R.
and Munn-Giddings C. (eds.) A Handbook for Action Research in health and Social Care.
Routledge, London.

Ledwith M. (2001) Community work as critical pedagogy: re-envisioning Freire and Gramsci.
Community Development Journal Vol. 36 (3); 171-182.

Lees R. and Smith G. (1975) (eds.) Action research and Community Development. Routledge
and Kegan Paul, London.

Levin M. and Greenwood D. (2001) Pragmatic Action Research and the Struggle to transform
Universities into Learning Communities in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Action Research:
participative enquiry and practice. Sage, London.

Lincoln Y. (2001) Engaging Sympathies: Relationships between Action Research and Social
Constructivism Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Action Research: participative enquiry and
practice. Sage, London.

Macaulay, A., Commanda L., Freeman W., Gibson N., McCabe M., Robbins C., and Twohig P.
(1999) Participatory research maximises community and lay involvement. British Medical
Journal Vol. 319; 774-778.

Maguire P. (2001) Uneven Ground: Feminism and Action Research in Reason P. and Bradbury H.
(eds.) Action Research: participative enquiry and practice. Sage, London.

Manderson L. (2000) People before contestability International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11,
2; 45-47.

Marshall J. (2001) Self-reflective practices in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Handbook of

Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London.

Martin A. (2001) Large-group processes as Action Research in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.)
Action Research: participative enquiry and practice. Sage, London.

Masters, J. (2000). The History of Action Research. Action Research E-Reports, 3. Available at:
http://www.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow/arer/003.htm

Mays N. and Pope C. (2000) Qualitative research in health care Assessing quality in qualitative
research. British Medical Journal Vol. 320; 50-52.

McCutcheon, G., and Jurg, B., (1990). Alternative Perspectives on Action Research. Theory into
Practice Volume 24, Number 3 Summer.

McKeganey N. (2000) Rapid assessment; really useful knowledge or an argument for bad
science? International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11, 2; 13-18.

59
McKernan, J., (1991). Curriculum Action Research. A Handbook of Methods and Resources for
the Reflective Practitioner. Kogan Page, London.

McLaughlin T. (1996) Coping with Hearing Voices: An Emancipatory Discourse Analytical

Approach Changes: An International Journal for Psychology and Psychotherapy Vol. 14; 238-
243.

McNiff J., Lomax P. and Whitehead J. (1996) You and Your Action Research Project. Routledge,
London.

McTaggart R. (1992) The Action Research Planner. Deakin University Press, Victoria.

Melrose M. (1996) Got a Philosophical Match? Does it Matter in Zuber-Skerritt O. (ed.) New
Directions in Action Research. Falmer Press, London.

Meyer J. (1993) New paradigm research in practice: the trials and tribulations of action
research. Journal of Advanced Nursing Vol. 18; 1066-1072.

Meyer J. (1995) Stages in the process: a personal account. Nurse Researcher Vol. 2 (3); 24-37.

Meyer J. (2000) Using qualitative methods in health related action research. British Medical
Journal Vol. 320; 178-181.

Mienczakowski J. and Morgan S. (2001) Ethnodrama: Constructing Participatory, Experiential

and Compelling Action Research through Performance Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Action
Research: participative enquiry and practice. Sage, London .

Murray L. and Lawrence B. (2000) Practitioner-Based Enquiry: Principles for Postgraduate

Research. Falmer Press, London.

Murray S. (1999) Experiences with ‘rapid appraisal’ in primary care: involving the public in
assessing health needs, orienting staff, and educating medical students. British Medical Journal
Vol. 318; 440-444.

National Health and Research Council (2001) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Research Involving Humans Part 8 - Research Involving Collectivities.
http://www.health.gov.au/hfs/nhmrc/publications/humans/part8.htm

Needle, R., Trotter R., Goosby E., Bates C., Von Zinkernagel D. (2000) Methodologically sound
rapid assessment and response; providing timely data for policy development on drug use
interventions and HIV prevention. International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11, 2; 19-23.

Nolan M. and Grant, G. (1993). Action research and quality of care: A mechanism for agreeing
basic values as a precursor to change. Journal of Advanced Nursing Vol.18; 305-311.

Ong B. (1996) Rapid appraisal and health policy. Chapman and Hall, London.

60
Ong B.N. (2000) Assessing rapid assessment and response by the appropriate standards.
International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11, 2; 49-50.

Park P. (1993) What is participatory research? A theoretical and methodological perspective. In

Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada Park P. (ed.) Bergin
and Garvey, Westport, CT.

Park P. (2001) Knowledge and Participatory Research in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Action
Research: participative enquiry and practice. Sage, London.

Parry O., Gnich W. and Platt S. (2001) Principles in practice: reflections on a ‘postpositivist’
approach to evaluation research. Health Education Research Vol. 16 (2); 215-226.

Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation Sage, London.

Petersen A. and Lupton D. (1996) The New Public Health: Health and Self in the Age of Risk.
Sage, London.

Pettigrew A.M. (1988) Longitudinal Field Research: theory and practice. Organisational Science
Vol. 3 (1); 23-34.

Poland B. (1996) Knowledge development and evaluation in, of and for Healthy Community
Initiatives. Part I: guiding principles. Health Promotion International Vol. 11 (3); 237-247.

Potter J. (1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. Sage,
London.

Power R. (2000) The empirical and methodological comparative value of the rapid assessment
of drug use patterns. International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11, 2; 181-191.

Prasad R. (2001) Model Figures. The Guardian Society 12/12/2001; 10-11.

Procter S. Watson B., Byrne C., Bremner J., Zwanenberg T., Browne G., Roberts J., Gafni A.
(2000) The development of an applied whole-systems research methodology in health and
social service research: a Canadian and United Kingdom collaboration. Critical Public Health
Vol. 10 (3); 233-256.

Quinn Patton M. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage, London.

Rappert B. (1997) Users and social science research: policy problems and possibilities.
Sociological Research On-line http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/10.html

Rawson D. (1992) The growth of health promotion theory and its rational reconstruction:
lessons from philosophy in Bunton R. and Macdonald G. (eds.) Health Promotion: disciplines
and diversity Routledge, London.

Reason P. (1994) Three Approaches to Participative Enquiry in Denzin K. and Lincoln Y.

Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, London.

61
Reason P. and Bradbury H. (2001a) Preface in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Action Research:
participative enquiry and practice. Sage, London.

Reason P. and Bradbury H. (2001b) Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World Worthy of
Human Aspiration in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Handbook of Action Research:
Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London.

Rhodes T., Fitch C., Stimson G., Kumar M. (2000) Rapid assessment in the drugs field.
International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11, 2; 1-11.

Rist R. (1994) Influencing the Policy Process with Qualitative Research in Denzin N. and Lincoln
Y. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, London.

Robson C. (1993) Real World Research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner
–researchers. Blackwell, London.

Rosenfield P. (1992) The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending
linkages between health and social sciences. Social Science and Medicine Vol. 35; 1343-1357.

Rowan J. (2001) The Humanistic Approach to Action Research in Reason P. and Bradbury H.
(eds.) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London.

Rudolph J., Taylor S., Gabrielle Foldy E. (2001) Collaborative Off-line Reflection: a Way to
Develop Skill in Action Science and Action Enquiry in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.)
Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London.

Sarkar S. (2000) Rapid assessment and response; some lessons learnt in the south Asian context.
International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11, 2; 51-54.

Salmon P. (1996) The Importance of Positioning Changes: An International Journal for

Psychology and Psychotherapy Vol. 14; 218-222.

Sanson Fisher R., Redman S, Hancock L, Halpin S, Clarke P, Schofield M, Burton R, Hensley M,
Gibberd R, Reid A. (1996) Developing methodologies for evaluating community-wide health
promotion Health Promotion International Vol. 11 (3); 227-236.

Schein E. (2001) Clinical Inquiry/Research in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Handbook of

Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London.

Senge P. and Scharmer O. (2001) Community Action Research: Learning as a Community of

Practitioners, Consultants and Researchers in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Handbook of
Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London.

Simons H. (1987) Getting to Know Schools in a Democracy. The Falmer Press, London.

Smith G. (1975) Action Research: Experimental Social Administration? Lees R. and Smith G.
(eds.) Action research and Community Development Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

62
Smithies J. and Webster G. (1998) Community Involvement in Health: from passive recipients to
active participants. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Springett J. (2001) Appropriate approaches to the evaluation of health promotion. Critical

Public Health Vol. 11 (2); 139-151.

Stacey J. (1991) Can there be a Feminist Ethnography? in Gluck S. and Patai D. (eds.) Women’s
Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History Routledge, London.

Stake R. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Sage, London.

Stenhouse J. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. Heineman,

London.

Stimson G., Fitch C., Rhodes T. and Ball A. (1999) Rapid assessment and response: methods for
developing public health responses to drug problems. Drug and Alcohol Review Vol. 18; 317-
325.

Susman G. and Evered R. (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research.
Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 23; 582-603.

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 1.
Available on-line: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari/ari-swepson.html

Taket A. and White L. (2000) Partnership and Participation: decision making in the multi-
agency setting. Wiley, Chichester.

Titchen A. (1995). Issues of validity in action research. Nurse Researcher Vol.2 (3); 38-48.

Tones K. (1998) Effectiveness in health promotion: indicators and evidence of success in Scott
D. and Weston R. (eds.) Evaluating Health Promotion. Stanley Thornes, Cheltenham.

Torbert W. (2001) The Practice of Action Enquiry in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Handbook
of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London.

Trautmann F. and Burrows D. (2000) Conditions for the effective use of rapid assessment and
response methods. International Journal of Drug Policy Vol. 11, 2; 59-61.

Treleaven L. (2001) The Turn to Action and the Linguistic Turn in Reason P. and Bradbury H.
(eds.) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London.

Vala V. (1994) Popular education and knowledge: popular surveillance of health and education
services in Brasilian metropolitan areas. Education Action Research Vol. 2 (3); 403-414.

Wadsworth Y. (2001) The Mirror, the Magnifying Glass, the Compass and the Map: Facilitating
Participatory Action Research in Reason P. and Bradbury H. (eds.) Handbook of Action
Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London.

63
Walker R. (1995) The public’s problem with public health research. Health Promotion
International Vol. 10 (3); 229-237.

Waterman H. (1995) Distinguishing between ‘traditional’ and action research. Nurse Researcher
Vol. 2 (3); 15-23.

Waterman H., Tillen D. Dickson R. and de Koning K. (2001) Action research: a systematic review
and guidance for assessment. Health Technology Assessment Vol. 5. No. 23.

Webb G. (1996) Becoming Critical of Action Research for Development Zuber-Skerritt O. (ed.)
New Directions in Action. Research Falmer Press, London.

Weiskopf R. and Laske S. (1996) Emanicipatory Action research: A Critical Alternative to

Personnel Developments or a New Way of Patronising People? in Zuber-Skerritt O. (ed.) New
Directions in Action Research. Falmer Press, London.

Whitelaw A. and Williams J. (1994) Relating health education research to health policy. Health
Education Research Vol. 9 (4); 519-526.

Whitelaw A. (2000) Feeling/Knowing in Research. Free Associations Vol. 8 (2); 121-139.

Whitelaw A. (2001) Types of public health research devised for this report (table 4).

Wilkinson E., Elander E. and Woolaway M. (1997) Exploring the use of action research to
stimulate and evaluate workplace health promotion. Health Education Journal Vol. 56;
188-198.

Williams A. (1995) Ethics and action research Nurse. Researcher Vol. 2 (3); 49-59.

Winter R. (1989) Learning from Experience: Principles and Practice in Action research. The
Falmer Press, London.

Winter R. (1996) Some Principles and Procedures in the Conduct of Action Research in Zuber-
Skerritt O. (ed.) New Directions in Action Research. Falmer Press, London.

Winter R. and Munn-Giddings C. (2001) A Handbook for Action Research in health and Social
Care. Routledge, London.

Whyte W. (1991) Participatory Action Research. Sage, London.

Wimbush E. and Watson J. (2000) An evaluation framework for health promotion: theory,
quality and effectiveness. Evaluation Vol. 6 (2); 301-321.

Woolgar S. and Pawluch D. (1985) Ontological gerry-mandering: the anatomy of social

problems explanations. Social Problems Vol. 32; 214-217.

64
Zuber-Skerritt O. (1996) Introduction: New Directions in Action Research in Zuber-Skerritt O.
(ed.) New Directions in Action Research. Falmer Press, London.

Zuber-Skerritt O. (1996b) Emancipatory Action Research for Organisational Change and

Management Development in Zuber-Skerritt O. (ed.) New Directions in Action Research.
Falmer Press, London.

65
Appendix 1: Pivotal factors in various
aspects of action research from Waterman et al, 2001; 29-41
Table 8 Pivotal factor: participation
Perceived positive aspects Perceived negative aspects
Promotes understanding of the context of Disrupts existing boundaries of decision
study making and strategic planning
Allows for problem identification by Initiates shifts in existing relationships
participants Requires energy to maintain
Develops appropriate, relevant and Provides opportunity for domination of
feasible innovations and strategies for projects by more powerful participants
change, leading to sustainable change Encourages feedback on performance of
Makes use of available resources of participants which may be viewed as a
knowledge and experience threat
Provides educational opportunities Takes time
through sharing of experience, knowledge Creates resistance to change
and ideas Creates negative feelings if changes are
Generates interest in the project not implemented
Increases or develops willingness to
participate and to change
Overcomes barriers to change
Promotes ownership of change
Allows for rapid uptake of change
Establishes rapport
Provides support
Saves time

Table 9: Pivotal factor: key persons

Perceived positive aspects Perceived negative aspects
Request study Impose the project
Obtain permission to conduct study Oppose the project
Authorise access to staff Do not participate, e.g. do not impart
Link different agendas e.g. managerial and information, do not complete diaries
professional agendas or viewpoints Do not participate, resulting in changes
Initiate or undertake the practice that is with low significance
the focus of change Dominate project
Provide skills relevant to the proposed Refuse to allow shifts in power
change
Provide resources: funding, materials, time,
staff
Sustain change: alteration of organisation
structure and policy to accommodate
innovations, provision of resources,
funding, personnel

66
Table 10: Pivotal factor: action researcher-participant relationship
Perceived positive aspects
Insider action researcher
Improved understanding of issues and
context
Enhanced credibility with participants
Challenged barriers to change
sustained change
Outsider action researcher
Brought fresh perspectives to issues
Led to empowerment of participants
Table 11: Pivotal factor: real world research
Perceived positive aspects
Reflects ‘real world’ situation
Clarifies context and issues
Increases relevance of research
Addresses mismatches, e.g. between
operational and strategic issues
Promotes service-led research
Exposes action researchers to realities of
practice
67
Perceived negative aspects
Familiarity clouded understanding
Conflicting commitments may have caused
delays
Participants disclosed information
reluctantly
Had limited access to sensitive/confidential
information
Perceived as owning the data
Could generate feelings of vulnerability of
participants if researcher regarded as
having outside approval
Experienced threats from certain alliances
dependence of researcher or participants
Had difficulty in understanding the context
Found it time consuming to understand
context and establish credibility
Lacked concern for the outcomes over the
long term
Appeared to have more to gain (i.e. higher
degree)
Perceived negative aspects
Creates conflict and tension as complex
issues are addressed
Disrupts existing relationships
Fails to meet expectations
Draws attention to issues that may have
low strategic or financial significance
Requires time out/away from the clinical
area for education, reflection, analysis
Table 12: Pivotal factor: project process and management
Perceived positive aspects
Responsiveness and flexibility
Receptive to new ideas
Fits with qualitative approach
Promotes participant-led projects
Encourages emerging information to
contribute to strategic plan
Allows for more rapid changes in research
and implementation
Feedback mechanisms
Enables contemporaneous monitoring
Enhances participation
Provides valuable guidance to the project
Enables more effective planning,
developing and implementing
Increases relevance of the study
Evaluation
Encourages agreement of end-point
Allows for evaluation in any phase of the
project
Table 13: Pivotal factor: knowledge
Perceived positive aspects
The knowledge from action research
Highlights gaps in services
Identifies inappropriate policy
Addresses untested approaches
Clarifies issues
Develops appropriate innovations
Develops practical knowledge
Prevents the implementation of
inappropriate interventions
Describes events and outcomes of change
Perceived negative aspects
Leaves the project without established
goals and objectives
Lacks clarity — difficult to gain funding,
interest, support
Encourages hijacking of project by strong
participants
Conceals poor project management as
responsiveness
Leads to numerous action plans that
spawn complex projects
Overshadows evaluation
Threatens participants, leading to tension
and potentially reducing participation
Takes time
Discourages establishment of an end-point
Perceived negative aspects
Theory development currently not a
primary concern of action researchers
Participation does not always foster theory
development
68
Appendix 2: Guidelines for assessing action research projects
from Waterman et al 2001; 44-50
1. Is there a clear statement of the aims and objectives of each stage of the
research?

Existence of having a difficulty in defining the exact purpose and outcome of an action
research project at the outset.

• Did the authors of the project clearly define the aims and objectives of the project?
• Were the aims and objectives appropriate?

For project proposals these may only include aims and objectives of the first phase of the
project and a description of when, and on what basis, future objectives will be generated.

2. Was the action research relevant to practitioners and/or users?

It would be appropriate to discuss its relevance to local and wider contexts in reports and
proposals.

• Did it address local issues?

• Does it contribute something new to understanding of the issues?
• Was it relevant to the experience of those participating?
• Is further research suggested?
• Is it stated how the action research will influence policy and practice in general?

3. Were the phases of the project clearly outlined?

The review of the literature showed that there are a number of misconceptions in
relation to the primary components of action research. A large number of publications
that were identified by the initial search were later excluded because they did not
demonstrate (or intend) a process of problem identification, action, evaluation and re-
assessment, or have a participatory component. This process is considered a distinguishing
attribute of action research and thus would be expected to feature in reports and
proposals.

It is difficult to specify, in advance, specific activities or cycles, because the outcomes of

each phase inform the next. It would denigrate a key characteristic and strength of action
research if this important factor were ignored. The first phase of action research, which
includes an initial analysis of the situation under study, sets the scene for subsequent
phases and, hence, it is essential that this is planned and undertaken as thoroughly as
possible. It is necessary to describe and justify how the first phase of a project might be
executed, and to estimate what the outcomes of that phase might be and how those
outcomes might influence future phases. Intermediate reports could be submitted to

69
 funding agencies as a condition of funding. These reports could outline the aims,
objectives and methods of subsequent phases of the project.

• Was a logical process in evidence (or intended)? including:

• problem identification
• planning
• action (change or intervention that was implemented)
• evaluation

• Did these influence the process and progress of the project?

4. Were the participants and stakeholders clearly described and justified?

As the review demonstrates, appropriate selection and inclusion of participants and

stakeholders is vital to the success of an action research project. It is appropriate for
action researchers to explain how individuals (or groups) were selected and why their
participation in the project was con-sidered important. They should also explain how
adjustments to project aims and objectives necessitated the inclusion of additional partici-
pants. It would be helpful if action researchers described how conflicts were addressed,
for example, how skilled facilitators assisted groups in dealing with such conflicts.

• Did the project focus on service users and/or health professionals?

• Is it stated who was selected and by whom for each phase of the project?
• Is it discussed how participants were selected for each phase of the project?

5. Was consideration given to the local context while implementing change?

Challenges described in included studies indicated a lack of thoroughness in the

understanding of local beliefs, values and structures or failure to identify the knock-on
effects of a proposed project. These factors are crucial to the success of any project and it
would appear to be a critical con-sideration prior to and during any action research
process. Thus, discussion of these factors should be expected in action research reports
and proposals.

• Is it clear which context was selected, and why, for each phase of the project?
• Is there a critical examination of values, beliefs and power relationships?
• Is there a discussion of who would be affected by the change and in what way?
• Was the context appropriate for this type of study?

6. Was the relationship between researchers and participants adequately

considered?

The studies included in this review indicate the importance of the relationship between

70
 action researchers and participants, and also the difficulties faced by action researchers in
attempting to establish participative relationships. Some of the included studies did not
provide details of the mode of participation, that is, the participants’ role in the decision-
making process and involvement in the research, or their level of participation. The
included studies indicated a need for action researchers not only to be aware of the
potential benefits of participating in the project but also to recognise that participation
takes time and that it cannot be forced. Action researchers should be expected to discuss
how participation has served or will serve to enable practitioners and users to address
local conflicts/problems in reports and proposals.

In only a few studies was the effect of action researchers’ and participants’ perspectives
on the collection and analysis of data discussed critically. Reflexive commentaries help
action researchers to analyse their values and beliefs, and how they and others have
influenced the project. This critical attitude leads to a more informed understanding of
the limitations of their approach and, at the same time, may improve the scope of their
work. Thus, it appears reasonable to advise action researchers to be reflexive in their
accounts and to suggest that action researchers indicate in proposals the reflexive
qualities of their work.

• Is the level and extent of participation clearly defined for each stage?
• Are the types of relationships that evolved over the course of the project
acknowledged?
• Did the researchers and participants critically examine their own roles, potential biases
and influences, that is, were they reflexive?

7. Was the project managed appropriately?

Management of action research projects is complex and requires a variety of skills. Key
persons contributing to the success of included projects tended to be senior nurses or
managers. They were influential in bringing together the objectives of the action
research group and the trust or health organisation in which the research was conducted.
The outcomes and impact of action research is likely to be greater, that is, the effects are
likely to have greater strategic signifi-cance if those in powerful positions are involved.
Awareness and discussion of the importance and the role of key persons appear to be
essential components of reports and proposals of any action research projects.

The review indicates that one of the strengths of action research is its real-world focus.
Action research provides a framework for researchers to investigate current issues and
implement change. However; within this real-world focus lie many challenges. Reports
should include discussions on how projects were managed, so that readers can
understand the outcomes. This review suggests that a more rigorous approach to action
research may be required. Action researchers need to convince funding agencies, ethics
committees and other agencies that they have a comprehensive understanding of both
change processes and research: for example, that they have experience of (or access to)
not only action research but also management of research projects and groups. They
should demonstrate that they have secured appropriate support that will be maintained

71
 throughout the study, so that comprehensive planning is carried out before and during
the action research process. This includes appropriate timetabling of activities, together
with the ability to be responsive and to justify changes within the action research process.

Were the key persons approached and involved where appropriate?

• Did those involved appear to have the requisite skills for carrying out the various tasks
required to implement change and/or research?
• Was there a feasible implementation plan that was consistent with the skills, resources
and time available?
• Was this adjusted in response to local events and participants?
• Is there a clear discussion of the actions taken (the change or the intervention) and the
methods used to evaluate them?

8. Were ethical issues encountered and how were they dealt with?

As the review indicates, action researchers often work with vulnerable groups, of people
who might be at risk from unintended and unknown consequences of the action research
process. It is important to consider these in project design, to discuss such issues in action
research reports, and to be aware of how reports might negatively affect participants. For
example, some participants play a significant role in the action research process and, thus,
it may not be possible (or desirable) to maintain anonymity. However, action research
proposals should show how ethical issues will be identified and monitored during the
project.

In addition, in some studies professional ethics are constantly under review during the
action research process; discussion of this would reasonably be expected in the project
report and proposal. This is pertinent to studies which to seek to develop professional
roles, in which there will be an examination of the values and assumptions which
underpin practice.

• Was consideration given to participants, researchers and those affected by the action
research process?
• Was consideration given to underlying professional values? How were these explored
and realised in practice?
• Were confidentiality and informed consent addressed?

9. Was the study adequately funded/supported?

The results of the review indicate that action researchers consistently felt under-
resourced. The term ‘resource’ is used in its broadest sense and includes time, funds, staff
and materials. It is not possible to tell from this review if this shortfall is due to a lack of
application by action researchers to funding and support agencies or to a lack of approval
from these groups. Another explanation may be that there was a lack of anticipation, on
the part of the action researchers, in relation to the resources required for the project
(especially time). It is expected that the application of the guidelines developed in this

72
 review will encourage action researchers to develop appropriate time schedules and
budgets for future work, and the same criteria will guide funding agencies in providing
appropriate funds and support. This section of any research project report should also
include an acknowledgement of any conflicts of interests related to support or funding of
a project.

• Were the assessments of cost and resources realistic?

• Were there any conflicts of interest?

10. Was the length and timetable of the project realistic?

Action research often aims to affect the culture of study participants; the review suggests
that this takes time and that funding agencies ought to be prepared to fund studies for 3
years or more when necessary. Action research proposals should contain an approximate
timetable and milestones to demonstrate that the timescale is realistic.

• Is a timetable given for the project and, if appropriate, an indication of where the
section being reported fits into the overall timetable?

11. Were data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?

As discussed previously, the extent and type of research/evaluation varied between

studies. There were examples that demonstrated the potential of action research. Indeed,
some studies used multiple research strategies to collect data. However, not all projects
addressed important methodological issues: for example, whether the research method(s)
is/are appropriate to the question(s) being addressed. It is easy with the benefit of
hindsight to suggest how research might have been carried out. However, notwith-
standing the aims, and the often qualitative and evolutionary nature of action research,
there were clear indications from the included studies that research was secondary to
action and, con-sequently, opportunities were missed for in-depth and comprehensive
data collection. Whatever the research methods selected, action research reports should
provide explanations that demonstrate that they were appropriate to the issue(s) under
investigation. It may also be appropriate before the first phase begins to indicate how
research might be employed to address the aims and objectives by specifying potential
research questions, with a proviso that, as the project develops, these might be revised.
The amount of detail available depends, of course, on the extent and depth of
preparatory work that has been completed.

The lasting effects of action research were discussed in just over half of the projects
reviewed, They were wide-ranging but, at times, difficult to assess. This was because it
was often difficult to determine whether effects were directly attribut-able to the project.
Greater emphasis on the research aspect of action research should make it easier to
discern impacts, although the nature of the research means that this dilemma will never
be totally solved.

73
 • Were appropriate research methodologies used to answer research questions?
• Is it clear how data were collected, and why, for each phase of the project?
• Were data collection and record-keeping systematic?
• If methods were modified during data collection is an explanation provided?

12. Were steps taken to promote the rigor of the findings?

There was recognition and demonstration of the value of feeding-back information to

participants, and discussion of the mechanics and purpose of this feedback in some of the
studies reviewed. This contributed to an understanding of the action researcher –
participant relationship. Triangulation of methods was also frequently employed. This
featured as within-method or between-method triangulation, which means that either
several qualitative or quantitative methods were used, for example, unstructured
interviews and participant observation, or both qualitative and quantitative methods. It is
reasonable to expect a discussion of the value of triangulation according to the
circumstances of each project. No matter what research method has been used in a
project, it is useful for action researchers to outline clearly what steps were taken to
ensure the quality of the data. In action research proposals, researchers need to indicate
that their approach will be rigorous, while subsequent reports should include a
justification of the methods of data collection, data checking and changes in data
collection during the research.

• Were differing perspectives on issues sought?

• Did the researchers undertake method and theoretical triangulation?
• Were the key findings of the project fed back to participants at key stages?
• How was their feedback used?
• Do the researchers offer a reflexive account?

13. Were data analyses sufficiently rigorous?

As with data collection, the review found that, in general, more information regarding
data analyses is necessary in order to understand the process and outcomes of a project.
In the case of qualitative research, this might mean derivation of categories and themes,
and how they informed practice or the next phase of a project. Quotations from
participants are often used as evidence in qualitative research, and information could be
presented to explain how these were selected for inclusion in the report. Similarly, for
quantitative research this means an explanation of the management of data, the
application of statistical principles and the interpretation of results. For the reasons
already given, it is not always possible to predict methods of data analyses in an action
research proposal; how-ever, applicants would be expected to refer to how they might
expect to handle specific types of data.

• Were procedures for analysis described?

• Were the analyses systematic? What steps were made to guard against selectivity?
• Do the researchers explain how the data presented were selected from the
original sample?

74
 • Are arguments, themes, concepts and categories derived from the data?
• Are points of tension, contrast or contradiction identified?
• Are competing arguments presented?

14. Was the study design flexible and responsive?

Flexibility was cited as a reason for choosing action research. The findings suggest that
there is a need to balance the creativity that arises out of not predicting all the processes
and outcomes of a project against the need to be thoughtful, syste-matic and productive
in one’s actions. Action researchers should explain how they have adapted their activities
and research to the circumstances of the research setting.

A number of action researchers managed to structure their work so that it could easily he
communicated, while others, unfortunately, made it difficult for the reader to make sense
or ‘unpick’ their projects. As part of the review, a data extrac-tion table (see appendix 6)
was generated which helped the reviewers to summarise and compare methods, findings
and outcomes of different phases of an action research project. Such a table may be
employed as a structure to assist in the reporting of action research findings.

• Were findings used to generate plans and ideas for change?

• Was the approach adapted to circumstances and issues of real-life settings: that is, are
justifi-cations offered for changes in plan?

15. Are there clear statements of the findings and outcomes for each phase of
the study?

In general, several outcomes are identifiable at the end of each phase of an action
research project. The notion of outcome is interpreted broadly in action research and
relates to outcomes from reflection, action and research. These should be presented
clearly and critically appraised. For example, an assessment of a situation is made during
the first phase of action research and is an important outcome of the project. The
outcomes from the evaluation phase might include personal and professional
developments, as well as the findings from research conducted during the action research
process. In proposals, it would appear to be undesirable for specific outcomes to be pre-
determined; however, an indication could be given of the type of outcomes that might be
expected.

• Are the findings and outcomes presented logically for each phase of the study?
• Are they explicit and easy to understand?
• Are they presented systematically and critically – can the reader judge the range of
evidence/ research being used?
• Are there discussions of personal and practical developments?

75
16. Do the researchers link the data that are presented to their own commentary
and interpretation?

As the review shows, self- or collective reflection is often cited as an important element
of action research. Reflection is a thread that runs throughout a project and contributes
to theoretical under-standing and practice development, yet it is frequently not clearly
described or discussed. Reports should contain explanations of how reflection was
employed in the project, particularly in relation to practice or service developments and
to the research data gathered during the project. It would also appear reasonable for
proposals to indicate how reflection might be employed as a critical endeavour and be
used to monitor and inform the action research process and outcomes.

• Are justifications for methods of reflection provided?

• Is there a discussion of how participants were engaged in reflection?
• Is there a clear distinction made between the data and their interpretation?
• Have researchers critically examined their own and others’ roles in the interpretation of
data?
• Is sufficient evidence presented to satisfy the reader about the evidence and the
conclusions?

17. Is the connection to an existing body of knowledge made clear?

In just over a quarter of studies it was claimed that theory would be generated or a
contribution would be made to theory. However; the theory to be generated was not
well defined. Action research reporters often overlook the generation of theory. Their
publications tend to focus on the action aspect of action research, to the detriment of the
research and theoretical component, that is, on the action rather than the reason for it.
Further-more, when theory was considered, the focus tended to be on the process of
change, and theoretical insights into the topic under study were often missing.
Interpretation and explanation of events and findings need greater emphasis if action
research is to realise its potential in the context of healthcare. To this end, action
researchers should consider the theoretical implications of their work from the start, as
these may offer a useful focus. Furthermore, consideration of findings from different
theoretical perspectives may be a vehicle for critical discussion and action. It is
acknowledged that some proponents of action research consider the development of
theoretical generalisations as secondary to the development of practical knowledge.

• Is there a range of sources of ideas, categories and interpretations?

• Are theoretical and ideological insights offered?

18. Is the extent to which aims and objectives were achieved at each stage
discussed?

Reports were primarily presented in a narrative format that did not explicitly indicate the
extent to which aims or objectives were met. This process was, of course, hampered in

76
 those projects that did not have clearly defined aims and objectives. It would contribute
to methodological debates if reports could include data and discussion on successes
and/or failures.

• Have action research objectives been met?

• Are the reasons for successes and failures analysed?

19. Are the findings transferable?

The review findings suggest that although the action research was locally relevant and
driven, many of the outcomes would be of value to other health service
professionals/services. Some of the findings also had theoretical potential beyond the
setting in which the project took place. It would be helpful for reports to contain
detailed discussions and descriptions of the context of the action research to allow
readers to assess whether the changes and findings could be usefully transferred to their
own settings. Multi-site action research projects may be particularly well placed to
provide an overview of issues that might be applicable to areas beyond those studied.

• Could the findings be transferred to other settings?

• Is the context of the study clearly described?

20. Have the authors articulated the criteria on which their own work is to be
read/judged?

As the review indicates, action research does not fall easily into the categories usually
used for reporting research that are expected by researchers or academic audiences. Some
studies recommended that action researchers stipulate how their report should be read,
in order to counter possibly inappropriate assessment of action research projects. The
existing variations in action research suggest that it is reasonable for the researcher’s
position or standpoint on action research to be presented, so that their report or
proposal is regarded appropriately. This has particular relevance to the research and
reflective modes adopted and whether action researchers choose to generalise beyond
their immediate setting.

• Have the authors justified the perspective from which the proposal or report should be
interpreted?

77
Appendix 3: Guidelines and Categories for Classifying
Participatory Research Projects in Health
Promotion from Green et al (1995; 43-50)
1. Participants and the nature of their involvement

(a) Is the community of interest clearly described or defined?

(b) Do members of the defined community participating in the research have concern or
experience with the issue?
(c) Are interested members of the defined community provided opportunities to
participate in the research process?
(d) Is attention given to barriers to participation, with consideration of those who have
been under-represented in the past?
(e) Has attention been given to establishing within the community an understanding of
the researchers commitment to the issue?
(f) Are community participants enabled to contribute their physical and/or intellectual
resources to the research process?

2. Origins of the research question

(a) Did the impetus for the research come from the defined community?
(b) Is an effort to research the issue supported by members of the defined community?

3. Purpose of the research

(a) Can the research facilitate learning among community participants about individual
and collective resources of self-determination?
(b) Can the research facilitate collaboration between community participants and
resources external to the community?
(c) Is the purpose of the research to empower the community to address determinants of
health?
(d) Does the scope of the research encompass some collaboration of political, social and
economic determinants of health?

4. Process and context-methodological implications

(a) Does the research process apply the knowledge of community participants in the
phase of planning, implementation and evaluation?
(b) For community participants, does the process allow for learning about research
methods?
(c) For researchers, does the process allow for learning about the community health
issue?

78
 (d) Does the process allow for flexibility or change in the research methods and focus, as
necessary?
(e) Are procedures in place fro appraising experiences during implementation of the
research?
(f) Are community participants involved in analytic issues: interpretation, synthesis and
the verification of conclusions?

5. Opportunities to address the issue of interest

(a) Is the potential of the defined community for individual and collective learning
reflected by the research process?
(b) Is the potential of the defined community for action reflected in the research process?
(c) Does the process reflect a commitment by researchers and community participants to
social, individual or cultural actions consequent to the learning acquired through
research?

6. The nature of research outcomes

(a) Do community participants benefit from the research outcomes?

(b) Is there attention to or an explicit agreement for acknowledging and resolving in a
fair and open way any differences between researchers and community participants in
the interpretation of the results?
(c) Is there attention to or an explicit agreement between researchers and community
participants with respect to ownership of research data?
(d) Is there attention to or an explicit agreement between researchers and community
participants with respect to the dissemination of the research results?

79
80