( Modified from _Arcs Newsletter_, Vol 1. No. 1, May 1993,
pages 5-9.
I am pleased to acknowledge the help of Ron Passfield and
Paul Wildman with the earlier version of this document.
This document may be copied freely if it is not sold at a
profit and its source is identified. )
________________________________________________________________
A beginner's guide to action research
Action research consists of a family of research methodologies
which pursue action and research outcomes at the same time. It
therefore has some components which resemble consultancy or
change agency, and some which resemble field research.
Conventional research, for good reason, has developed certain
principles to guide its conduct. These principles are
appropriate for certain types of research; but they can
actually inhibit effective change. Action research has had to
develop a different set of principles.
Action research tends to be...
o cyclic -- similar steps tend to recur, in a similar
sequence;
o participative -- the clients and informants are involved as
partners, or at least active participants, in the research
process;
o qualitative -- it deals more with language than with
numbers; and
o reflective -- critical reflection upon the process and
outcomes are important parts of each cycle.
In fact, some writers insist on those characteristics.
To achieve action, action research is responsive. It has to be
able to respond to the emerging needs of the situation. It
must be flexible in a way that some research methods cannot be.
To increase rigour, it is usually cyclic. The early cycles are
used to help decide how to conduct the later cycles. In the
later cycles, the interpretations developed in the early cycles
can be tested and challenged and refined.
In most instances the use of qualitative information increases
responsiveness. It is possible to work in natural language,
which is easier for informants. There is no need to develop a
metric (which may have to be abandoned later if it doesn't fit
the emerging situation).
One crucial step in each cycle consists of critical reflection.
The researcher and others involved first recollect and then
critique what has already happened. The increased
understanding which emerges from the critical reflection is
then put to good use in designing the later steps.
The cycle best known in Australia is probably that of Stephen
Kemmis and his colleagues at Deakin University. The steps are:
plan --> act --> observe --> reflect ( --> plan etc.)
The reflection leads on to the next stage of planning. The
"planning" isn't a separate and prior step; it is embedded in
the action and reflection. Short, multiple cycles allow
greater rigour to be achieved.
As change is intended to result, effective action research
depends upon the agreement and commitment of those affected by
it. This is usually generated by involving them directly in
the research process. In many instances, researchers try to
involve them as equal partners.
Action research in more detail
I regard action research as a methodology which is intended to
have both action outcomes and research outcomes. I recognise,
too, that in some action research the research component mostly
takes the form of understanding on the part of those involved.
The action is primary. In distinction, there are some forms of
action research where research is the main emphasis and the
action is almost a fringe benefit.
I regard all of these as action research. This definition is
capable of encompassing a variety of research and intervention
methods. It is broad enough to include, as examples, the
critical action research approach of Carr and Kemmis (1986),
the soft systems methodology of Checkland (1981), and the
evaluation of Guba and Lincoln (1989), to name just a few.
The responsiveness of action research allows it to be used
to develop hypotheses from the data, "on the run" as it
were. It can therefore also be used as a research tool for
investigative or pilot research, and generally for diagnosis or
evaluation.
Cyclic, participative, qualitative
Most writers on the topic state or assume that action research
is cyclic, or at least spiral in structure. To put this
differently, certain steps tend to recur, in more-or-less
similar order, at different phases of an action research study.
At the same time, or so the action researcher hopes, progress
is made towards appropriate action and research outcomes.
A commonly known cycle is that of the influential model of
Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) mentioned earlier -- plan, act,
observe, reflect; then, in the light of this, plan for the
next cycle.
It is also generally held that action research is
participative, though writers differ on how participative it
is. My own preference is to use participative methods. On the
other hand I don't see why action research must be limited to
this.
So, the extent of participation may vary. In some instances
there may be a genuine partnership between researcher and
others. The distinction between researcher and others may
disappear. On other occasions the researcher may choose for
whatever reason to maintain a separate role. Participation may
be limited to being involved as an informant.
Most action research is qualitative. Some is a mix of
qualitative and quantitative.
All else being equal, numbers do offer advantages. In field
settings, though, one often has to make other sacrifices to be
able to use them. Most importantly, sometimes numbers are not
easily applied to some features of a study. If these include
features of particular interest or importance, the choice is
between qualitative research or omitting important features.
In addition, developing a suitable quantitative measure is
often difficult and time-consuming. It may be more time-
efficient to use qualitative data. As I mentioned before, it
is also easier to be flexible and responsive to the situation
if you are using qualitative methods.
In short, it is my view that action research more often than
not exhibits certain features. It tends to be, in some sense
of the terms, cyclic, participative, qualitative and
reflective. I see all of these features (except the last) as
choices to be made by the researcher. Good action research is
research where, among other features, appropriate choices are
made.
"Good" action research
Whatever action research is, I suspect it is mostly or always
responsive. In fact, I think that the choices made about its
cyclic and qualitative nature or about the extent of
participation are to be justified in terms of the
responsiveness which they allow.
In many field settings it is not possible to use more
traditional research methods because they can't readily be
adjusted to the demands of the situation. If you do alter them
in midstream you may have to abandon the data collected up to
that point. (This is because you have probably altered the
odds under the null hypothesis.)
But to achieve both action and research outcomes requires
responsiveness -- to the situation, and the people, and the
growing understanding on the part of those involved. Using a
cyclic process in most circumstances enhances responsiveness.
It makes sense to design the later stages of an action research
activity in such a way that you capitalise on the understanding
developed in the early stages.
It is the cyclic nature of action research which allows
responsiveness. It is often difficult to know just where a
field intervention will end. Precise research questions at the
beginning of a project may mislead researcher and clients.
Imprecise questions and methods can be expected to yield
imprecise answers initially. But if those imprecise answers
can help to refine questions and methods, then each cycle can
be a step in the direction of better action and research.
In other words, there are times when the initial use of fuzzy
methods to answer fuzzy questions is the only appropriate
choice. Action research provides enough flexibility to allow
fuzzy beginnings while progressing towards appropriate endings.
A cyclic process is important. It gives more chances to learn
from experience provided that there is real reflection on the
process and on the outcomes, intended and unintended.
Qualitative information is less constraining of the process.
Participation is a somewhat different issue, more to do with
action than research. Action outcomes can usually be achieved
only with some commitment from those most affected.
Participation is one means to that commitment. There may well
be other reasons, too. For instance, for some researchers it
is more ethical to use participative methods (in general, this
is our position in the action research we do). On some
occasions the eventual interpretation of information is richer
if involvement is greater.
So far, I have taken the view that action research can take
many forms. There are some conditions, however, that I believe
are more important. As a starting assumption I assume that
good action research is empirical: responsive to the evidence.
I think it is important that the evidence is used critically
rather than uncritically.
Again, a cyclic process allows this to happen more easily. If
each step is preceded by planning and followed by review,
learning by researcher and client is greater.
The quality of evidence can also be increased by the use of
multiple sources of evidence within all or most cycles.
Differences between data sources, used critically, can then
lead the researchers and the participants towards a deeper and
more accurate understanding.
I would sum up my recommendations for good action research in
this way:
Use multiple cycles, with planning before action and
critical analysis after it.
Within each cycle --
o use multiple data sources;
o and try to _disprove_ the interpretations arising
from earlier cycles
Action research is a methodology whose flexibility allows
learning and responsiveness. Vague beginnings can move towards
better understanding and practical improvement through the
critical analysis of the information, the interpretation of it,
and the methods used.
Good action researchers, I think, critique what they do and how
they do it, the better to learn from the experience. It is the
balance between critical reflection and flexibility which
allows adequate rigour to be achieved even in confused field
settings.
In summary, I assume that action research is true to label: it
pursues action and research outcomes. It is most effective
when the end result emerges from the data. The conclusions
drawn are data-based, preferably drawing the data from multiple
sources. The conclusions emerge slowly over the course of the
study. At each cycle the researchers challenge the emerging
conclusions by vigorously pursuing disconfirming evidence.
I think that the major justification for action research
methods is that they can be responsive to the situation in a
way that many other research methods can not, at least in the
short term. On these grounds I think action research will
usually, though perhaps not always, be cyclic in nature. In
the interests of rigour, each cycle will include critical
reflection. In most instances it will also be qualitative and
participative to some extent.
References
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming critical: education
knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.
Checkland, P. (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice.
Chichester: Wiley.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989) Fourth generation
evaluation. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R., eds. (1988) The action research
planner, third edition. Victoria: Deakin University.