Overview of the Literature Review

PAGE 20

What is Action Research?

Via

A review of the Literature

A Dissertation Extract

By

Dr. George SlentzIf you choose to use this document as part of your research, use the following reference notation:Slentz, G.M. (2003). A collaborative action research approach to developing statewide information standards supporting the Delaware education network (Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College, 2003).

CHAPTER II

Literature Review

Inclusion Criteria

After determining the focus of this dissertation, several Wilmington College faculty members including academic advisors offered suggestions of relevant literature references. In addition to those recommendations, two annotated AR bibliographies by Dick (2002a & 2002b) provided a wealth of relevant material to review.

The Internet served as both an independent resource as well as a method to access EBSCOhost an electronic search engine which accesses numerous academic databases, such as Academic Search Premier, Masterfile, and Business Source Elite. Only articles that offered text availability through EBSCOhost were reviewed. Most Internet searches were conducted using www.Google.com an excellent, in depth publicly available search engine. In utilizing either EBSCOhost or Google, various combinations of search words were used. For example, one search would consist of research and action and the second action research. Since most search engines used, search, based on word sequence, interchanging the searching sequence of the words was essential. The searches centered in two specific topic areas: action research methodologies and information technology standards.

The Wilmington College Library provided some additional resources dealing with research and researching techniques, as well completed Wilmington College dissertations.

Overview of Action Research Literature Action research literature was reviewed first, including definitions, methodologies, origins, and evolution. An in depth examination of AR literature revealed there was no universal AR methodology, but rather a confusing conglomeration of methodologies all alleged to be AR. In some instances, the differences were subtle, such as who identified the research setting, the researcher, or the client (Schein, 2001). In other more diverse examples, conflicting paradigms, epistemologies, and methodologies emerged (Heron & Reason, 1997). Swepson (1998) said, I found some of the literature on the practice of action research to be contradictory and this left me confused about how to practice it (p.2). Comments such as this one helped this researcher appreciate that other researchers were equally confused. The context of an AR study may appear disparate to different researchers. This lack of clarity and definition was quite common in AR literature, and these discrepancies often hindered understanding and comprehension of AR processes.

A variety of reasons for the shortcomings in AR discipline were identified: a lack of integration in the literature, decentralization in practice, nomenclature differences, and conflicting opinions. An inadequacy of the literature was acknowledged by Greenwood and Levin (1998) as they pointed out that; existing works are compendia, focus on a particular variety of AR to the exclusion of others, or do not link the history, philosophy, and practice of AR to a sufficiently broad set philosophical and political issues (p.5). Decentralization alludes to the proliferation of methodologies across a variety of concepts and disciplines. Greenwood and Levin further pointed out that action researchers were found in social service agencies, nongovernmental organizations, international development agencies, planning departments and industry. In academic institutions, action researchers were found in disciplines such as education, planning, communications, social services, program evaluation, sociology, anthropology, and organizational behavior. As a result, AR practitioners do not share common knowledge; they read different journals and books, and often write in ignorance of relevant contributions of others in AR from other fields (p. 5). Nomenclature refers to misunderstandings that stem from the use of different terminologies to explain similar concepts as pointed out by OBrien (2001) and McTaggart (1997) and reflected in the number of names used to describe action research including: participatory research, collaborative inquiry, emancipatory research, action learning, and contextual research. OBrien stated further that they were all just variations on the AR theme, although the approaches and methodologies were somewhat different. McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead (1996) highlighted conflicting opinions on the basic purpose of AR. Kemmis and McTaggart from their text, An Action Research Planner, (as cited in McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead, 1996, p. 10) stated The linking of the terms action and research highlights the essential feature of the method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge. Elliott, from his text on Action Research for Educational Change (as cited in McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead, 1996, p. 9) argues, Action research is about improving practice rather than producing knowledge. The two quotes seem to be at odds; the first one emphasized increasing knowledge, while the second one emphasized, improving practice rather than producing knowledge.

Contradictions in the literature make it difficult to provide a direct, focused, and definitive overview of AR. In this review, some of the more common AR contradictions were addressed by describing the similarities and differences between AR epistemologies, methodologies, and associated processes.

The review additionally considered a variety of theories, methodologies, frameworks, and examples involving AR usage in the IT industry, and standardization of IT.

Action Research: Definitions, History, and Paradigms

What is and is not considered AR

In one respect, AR was effortlessly defined; because, imbedded in the first or second paragraph of virtually all AR literature reviewed was a working definition. However, these definitions vary significantly in both context and content (McTaggart, 1997; OBrien, 2001; Stringer, 1999). Some of the leading AR researchers and practitioners definitions of action research are presented first, followed by the definition of AR used in this study. In general, the definitions reflected AR schools of thought, methodologies, forms of praxis, and/or associated paradigms.

1. Action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, p. 162).

2. Action research can be described as a family of research methodologies, which pursue action (or change) or research (or understanding) at the same time. In most of its forms it does this by: using a cyclic or spiral process which alternates between action and critical reflection and in the later cycles, continuously refining methods, data, and interpretation in the light of the understanding developed in the earlier cycles (Dick, 1999, p. 1).

3. AR is social research carried out by a team encompassing a professional action researcher and members of an organization or community seeking to improve their situation. AR promotes broad participation in the research process and supports action leading to a more just or satisfying situation for the stakeholders (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 4).

4. Action research is any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school counselors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment, to gather information about the ways that their particular schools operate, how they teach, and how well their students learn (Mills, 2000, p. 6).

5. Social psychologist Kurt Lewin, inventor of the term action research in English language, describes action research as proceeding in a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of planning, acting, observing, and evaluating the result of the action. In practice, the process begins with a general idea that some kind of improvement or change is desirable (McTaggart, 1997, p. 27).

6. Action researchaims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to further the goals of social science simultaneously. Thus, there is a dual commitment in action research to study a system and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in changing it in what is together regarded as a desirable direction. Accomplishing this twin goal requires the active collaboration of researcher and client, and thus stresses the importance of co-learning as a primary aspect of the research process (OBrien, 2001, p. 2).

7. Action research is a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowledge in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview which we believe is emerging at this historical moment. 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 & Bradbury, 2001, p. 1).

After interpreting a variety of researchers perspectives relating to the genesis and definitions of AR, Stringer (1999) identified some common themes that emerged across different schools of thought. He noted that they all acknowledged fundamental investment in processes that:

Are rigorously empirical and reflective (or interpretive)

Engage people who have traditionally been called subjects as active participants in the research process

Result in some practical outcome related to the lives or work of the participants (p. XVIII).

The definitions vary significantly in that some reflected theoretical foundations including epistemologies and related paradigms, some praxis and methodologies, whereas others reflected results. The diversity in definitions attributed to the wide variety of approaches in AR process and praxis. At minimum, it establishes the chicken or egg question of which came first. Unless researchers and practitioners establish a universal description of AR, AR processes, methodologies, and praxis will most likely continue to diversify.

Stringers interpretation and summations of AR, fit well with the process strategies this researcher developed and practiced during years in IT management. So rather than attempting to adapt to unfamiliar practices, the AR definition used for this study is:

AR is a systematic inquiry process that results in some practical outcome as perceived by the participants involved in the process. AR is cyclical, involving a series of spiral steps or activities such as planning, action, and fact-finding (Lewin, 1997) or look, think, and act (Stringer, 1999); reflection occurs throughout each of the steps. The process engages people who traditionally have been called subjects as active participants; and is rigorously empirical and/or interpretive (McTaggart, 1997; Stringer, 1999; Mills, 2000).

Greenwood and Levin (1998) pointed out that AR was not applied research. AR explicitly rejects the separation between thought and action that underlies the pure-applied distinction that has characterized social research for a number of generations (p. 6). They believe that valid social knowledge was derived from practical reasoning engaged in through action. Wadsworth (1998) further characterized AR by affirming it was not research which sees involvement as a contaminating process which bias the scientific effort, nor does it have a problem with researchers identifying with the researched, and researched for, seeing this rather essential to the gaining of engaged understanding (p. 17). McTaggart (1997) also has her list of what participator AR was not. She prefers using the prefix participatory when referring to AR, to clarify the intention of its originators, for whom participation action research implied people doing research for themselves. A summation of McTaggarts clarification is provided below:

1. Participatory AR is not the usual thing social practitioners ordinarily do when they think about their work. It is more systematic and collaborative in collecting evidence on which to base rigorous group reflection, and in planning change.

2. Participatory AR is not simply problem solving. It involves problem posing, not just problem solving.

3. Participatory AR is not research done on other people. It is research done by particular people on their own work, to help them improve what they do, including how they work with and for others.

4. Participatory AR is not a method or technique for policy implementation. It does not accept truths created outside the community or truths created by researchers working inside the community who treat the community as an object for research.

5. Participatory AR is not the scientific method applied to social (educational, agricultural) work. There is not just one view of the scientific method, there are many. Participatory AR is not is not just about testing hypotheses or using data to come to conclusions.

(p. 39)

Most of the issues identified under what AR is not were basically the same issues addressed under what is AR, although with a reversed context. In some instances, the what is not approach provided a distinct clarity that was not always captured in a what is definition, as evidenced in the not statement AR is not applied research. As a result, the definitions provided a slightly different perspective for comparing and contrasting established research methodologies and epistemologies.

Focusing on what AR was not, brought to light several ideological issues. For example, Wadsworth (1998) explained AR was not a contaminating process, which biases scientific approach. This helped clarify a personal ideology that researchers had to remain detached, unbiased, and serve essentially as an observer, to do effective research. Additionally, McTaggart (1997) further underscored that AR was not research done on other people; rather AR research was done by a particular group of people on there own work, in order to improve what they do. This further helped this researcher to understand that AR was a valid grounded research approach.

AR Genesis and Early Evolution

Although AR had emerged with great diversity and diffusion, its origin was generally agreed on by researchers and was attributed to Kurt Lewin, who was often referred to as the father of AR (Greenwood & Levin, 1998; Mills, 2000; OBrien, 2001; Reason & Bradbury, 2001;). Kurt Lewin was born in Prussia (now part of Poland) in 1890; he studied in Germany earning his PhD in 1916 from the University of Berlin. During this period, he experienced anti-Semitism first hand. In 1933, he chose to leave Germany to seek academic and personal freedoms. He and his family moved to the United States, where he first worked at the Cornell School of Economics, then at the University of Iowa, and finally in 1944 he established the Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT (Smith, 2001).

On his way to the United States, he stopped by Cambridge University (UK), and was given a tour of the University by Eric Trist an aspiring literature student. Trist was so moved by Lewins ideas that he changed his major to psychology, and began a lifetime association with the Polish born social psychologist. Trist began his career as an applied psychologist, building upon and extending Lewins work and theories in collaboration with his colleagues at the Travistock Institution in London. Travistock became dedicated to resolving practical problems by using AR. This AR approach later became a core methodology in the socio-technical school (Pasmore, 2001) and the emergence of the industrial tradition or movement (Greenwood & Levin, 1998).

Although Mills (2000) suggested Lewin originally coined the term action research in 1934, OBrien (2001) maintained that Lewin first coined action research in his 1946 paper Action Research and Minority Problems. His paper characterized AR as comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action. He used a process of iterative steps also referred to as a spiral of steps; each of which is composed of a cycle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action.

Action research grew and expanded in Western Europe largely through the efforts of Travistock. This new methodology was referred to as Industrial Democracy, a systematic and large scale AR effort in Western industrialized countries. Industrial Democracy followed the tradition of democratic processes, collaboration and participation of ordinary people, and the importance of reflective thought in resolving practical problems. Industrial democracy later expanded to the East, finding fertile ground in Japan, where their culture readily accepted collective work and the idea of groups taking on problem solving and operational responsibilities (Greenwood and Levin, 1998).

AR Paradigms and Theoretical Foundations

The notion of a paradigm or worldview as a strategic perspective that organized our approach to being in the world had become commonplace since Kuhn published, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Heron & Reason, 1997). Kuhn (1996) pointed out that accepted examples of actual scientific practice examples which include law, theory, application, and instrumentation together provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research (p. 10). The traditions inherent in paradigms, however, were not necessarily scientifically supported, that was to say, they represented a distillation of what we think about the world but cannot prove (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In basic terms, Barker (1992) defined a paradigm as a set of rules and regulation (written or unwritten) that does two things: it establishes or defines boundaries; and it tells you how to behave inside the boundaries to be successful (p. 32).

Heron and Reason (1997) presented arguments for a participatory worldview of inquiry paradigm while critiquing and deconstructing competing research paradigms of positivism, postpositivism, critical thinking, and constructivism. Lincoln and Guba (1985), stressed postpositivism and a naturalistic paradigm as they emphasized that it was imperative that inquiry itself be shifted from a positive to a postpositivist stance. For, if a new paradigm of thought and belief is emerging, it is necessary to construct a parallel new paradigm of inquiry (p. 15). OBrien (2001) situates AR into three varying research paradigms: positivist, interpretive, and praxis. His interpretative paradigm had many of the same characteristics that distinguished a postpositivist paradigm. His praxis paradigm shared many of the perspectives of both the positivist and interpretive paradigms, emphasizing that knowledge was derived from practice.

This project was initially planed to employ a positivist research paradigm; however, in reviewing different philosophical perspectives and associated paradigms, a more middle-of-the-road approach was employed that identified closely with OBriens (2001) praxis paradigm. The integration of both positivist and interpretive paradigms greatly increased the flexibility to the project by linking qualitative and quantitative methodologies for collecting and analyzing data.Mills (2000) provided a basic theoretical foundation that was helpful in understanding some of the underpinnings in AR; he classified AR into two main theories: critical (or theory based) action research and practical action research (p. 7). Critical AR derived its name from the body of critical theory on which it was based (not because this type of AR is critical although it may very well be used in a critical situation). Practical AR emphasized the how to approach and was less philosophical. His description offered a level of clarity through simplification. After gaining a basic understanding however, the distinctive differences in AR processes became apparent. Further research and understanding of the conceptional framework was needed in order to identify a more sophisticated distinction among AR processes. Through further research, a slightly more elaborate framework was discovered that was usually attributed to Habermas (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Myers, 1997; Wortley, 1996; Masters, 1995). Carr and Kemmis (1986) describe Habermas proposal that knowledge is the outcome of human activity that is motivated by natural needs and interests (p. 134). They further point out, Habermas contends that human knowledge is constituted by virtue of three knowledge-constitutive interests which he labels the technical, the practical, and the emancipatory (p. 134); each interest furthermore related to a corresponding approach of science. Habermas contends, the approach of the empirical-analytic sciences incorporates a technical cognitive interest; that of the historical-hermeneutic sciences incorporates a practical one; and the approach of critical oriented sciences incorporates the emancipatory cognitive interest (Habermas, 1968/1972, p. 308). Based on Habermas analysis, Kemmis (2001) and his group constructed a three-tiered model that related the interests of empirical -analytic (technical), hermeneutics (practical), and critical (emancipatory) to AR. Empirical-analytic or natural science relates to technical interest usually affiliated with work; its main focus was a means to an end, and a means to getting things accomplished effectively by following a positivist paradigm. Hermeneutics or interpretative science related to a practical interest and involved wise and prudent decision-making in practical situations. Critical science related to emancipatory interests and involved emancipating people from determination of habit, custom, illusion, and coercion (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis, 2001). Using Habermas framework, examples of AR processes that coincide with his theoretical foundations are provided below. As mentioned previously, theoretical frameworks were not usually included in the literature describing AR processes or methodology. Therefore, the placing of an AR process into one of Kemmis three tiers was based on this researchers interpretations of the most prominent characteristics of each particular AR process. The examples selected have relatively straightforward or clear cut characteristics and require minimal interpretation to classify them into Habermas three-tier model.

Empirical-analytic. According to Kemmis (2001), this was a Means to an end form of AR problem solving; and regarded as successful when the outcome matched the aspirations, or when the goal of the project had been attained. Empirical-analytic was oriented towards functional improvement measured in terms of its success in changing particular outcomes of practice. Most examples aimed to increase or decrease the incidence of a particular outcome, such as increasing the rate of production in a factory. This form of AR was a form of problem-solving, and was regarded as successful when outcomes matched aspirations. Researchers do not normally question the goals or how the situation is conducted or constructed. It takes a narrow, generally pragmatic (in the ordinary-language use of the term) view of its purpose (p. 92). OBrien (2001) provided a similar theoretical framework, but he referred to empirical-analytic as traditional AR that stemmed from Lewins work within organizations and encompassed the concepts and practices of field theory, group dynamics, T-groups, and the clinical model. He pointed out, this approach was relatively conservative, generally maintaining the status quo of the power structure of the organization.

Technical AR as described by Carr and Kemmis (1986) occurred when facilitators persuade practitioners to test the findings of external research in their own practices, and where the outcome of the tests feed new findings in external literature. The emphasis was on developing and extending the research literature base not on improving practice through collaborative or self-reflective control.

In general, AR under this framework was accomplished within the parameters of a positivistic paradigm. Although not a necessity, technical AR most likely employed a quantitative methodology for data collection and focused on progressive achievement towards a particular goal or outcome. Early methodologies did not involve changing social structure or consider the affects of learning or knowledge growth that may occur during the process. Two AR processes that follow this framework were Industrial Democracy and Sociotechnical.

The Industrial Democracy tradition was born when Travistock researchers lead by Eric Trist, assisted a Norwegian coal mining company with improving democracy at the shop-floor level. Trist employment of Kurt Lewins change model in the study resulted in the development of the first generation of action research processes and methodologies. Lewins model simplified the change process into three basic steps of unfreezing, moving, and freezing (Lewin, 2000). Greenwood & Levin (1998) further pointed out that both experimental design and change processes were prominent in the early development of the Industrial Democracy tradition in AR. These early methodologies required researchers to complete research analysis, recommend a new design approach, and then structure the processes by which the changes were implemented. Changes were implemented and then the organization was permitted to develop a stable state incorporating the changes. Greenwood and Levin also stated, Consultation with the participants was not to be found (p. 29).

Industrial Democracy focused on ways research results improved participants abilities to control their own situations as a result of a redesigned organization. Further, it began the first reflections about designing research processes that redefined the relationship between researchers and participants (Greenwood & Levin, 1998). Researchers working within this tradition played a clear-cut expert role; they collected data, analyzed it, and developed recommendations for a new design. Researchers involved the workers who were directly affected by the change only during the implementation stage in the change process. Although the seminal studies on the Norwegian coal mining company had great bearing on AR development, Pasmore (2001) pointed out that the studies were not true examples of AR since the researchers served as observers of the naturally occurring experiments rather than collaborators in the planning and evaluation of the experiments.

The single major significant outcome that sprouted from the Industrial Democracy tradition was the development of sociotechnical thinking (Greenwood & Levin, 1998). This also represented a major shift from the prevalent Tayloristic-Scientific Management thinking, where technology and management control were dominant. In the new paradigm of sociotechnical design (as cited by Greenwood and Levin, 1998), Trist differentiated between the old and new management paradigms. Trish pointed out in the old Scientific Management (associated with Taylor) paradigm, that man was an extension of the machine and an expendable spare part; the organization chart defined a hierarchy, and operation was through competition and gamesmanship. In the new (sociotechnical) paradigm, Trist offered a fresh perspective in that he viewed man as complementary to the machine and as a resource to be developed; the organization (chart) was designed flat and operation was through collaboration and collegiality.

Sociotechnical thinking evolved, integrating other theories and models into the developing process. One other significant new perspective was the addition of Von Bertalanffys theory of open systems, better known as general systems theory (GST). Systems thinking observed organizations as complex systems made up of interrelated parts most usefully studied as an emergent whole (Flood, 2001). As sociotechnical systems theory evolved, it included the technical system as well as the material being worked on, the level of mechanization or automation, operations including centrality, and a variety of other impacting functions. In general, sociotechnical systems theory viewed the technical system as an integral part of the larger work system as a whole. According to Greenwood and Levin (1998), the systems approach underlies AR in all of its manifestations. Both AR and GST rely heavily on a holistic view of the world and on relative efforts to transform society into more open systems.

Hermeneutics. According to Greenwood and Levin (1998), Hermeneutics is based on the ontological position that the world is subjective and the epistemological project is to make interpretations of the subjective world (p. 68). This interpretative view had a long history beginning as a science for interpreting biblical texts (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). By the eighteenth century, it was also used for interpreting literature, works of art, and music. By the late nineteenth century, the social sciences expanded their epistemological basis by embracing hermeneutics. Denzin (2001) reflected on its use in the social sciences by recognizing that properly conceptualized interpretative research became a civic, participatory, or collaborative project that joins the researcher with the researched in an ongoing moral dialogue.

OBrien (2001) provided a similar theoretical framework, referring to practical AR as contextural AR or action learning. AR was contextural, insofar as it involved reconstituting the structural relations among actors in a social environment; it was co-generative, in that it attempted to involve all affected stakeholders; holistic, as each participant understood the entirety of the project; and collaborative, by stressing that participants acted as project designers and co-researchers. Within this framework, social transformation occurred by consensus and normative incrementalism. This approach closely aligned with the CAR process used to develop IT standards in this study.

In practical AR, external facilitators form cooperative relationships with practitioners, helping them to articulate their concerns (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). In collaboration, they planed the strategic actions necessary for change, monitor the problems and effects of changes, and reflected on the value of the changes. Through this process, the stakeholders were responsible for monitoring their own educational practices with an immediate aim of expanding their personal knowledge of the project. McNiff (2000) further described collaboration as a caring praxis. While we aim to develop and maintain our own and others autonomy, this was always done with respect for others. McNiff stated, In this sense, collaboration becomes an effort to develop mutually respectful autonomy, a practice in which people work together as equals, engage in the give and take of negotiating positions, and agree settlements which are then subjected to critical processes of evaluation and modification (p. 217). Collaboration is an attitude, requiring a willingness to listen and communicate as well as move in the direction of commonly agreed practice.

Practical AR gets its title because it developed the practical reasoning of practitioners. Carr and Kemmis further stated that, It is to be distinguished from technical AR because it treats the criteria by which practices are to be judged as problematic and open to development through self-reflection, rather than treating them as given (p. 203). Kemmis (2001) further distinguished that, unlike technical AR, practical action researchers aim just as much at understanding themselves and changing themselves as the subjects of a practice, as changing the outcomes of the practice.

There are many AR processes that follow the hermeneutic approach. In fact, the majority of AR processes and derivatives of those processes employ an interpretative strategy. However, rather than discussing multiple process and variations, two AR processes that provided a level of diversity and interest are community-based AR and action science.

Communitybased AR seeks to change the social and personal dynamics of the research situation, providing a noncompetitive and nonexploitative as well as enhancing the lives of all those who participate (Stringer, 1999). By employing a collaborative approach to inquiry, communitybased AR seeks to build positive working relationships, productive interactions, and communicative styles among participants.

Communitybased AR further draws on an explicit set of social values and was seen as an inquiry process that employed the following characteristics: democratic encouraging participation from all; equitable acknowledging peoples worth; liberating providing freedom from oppression; and life enhancing encouraging peoples full potential. According to Stringer (1999), all stakeholders whose lives are affected by the problem should be engaged in the investigation process. Stakeholders participate in a process of rigorous inquiry; collecting information and reflecting on that information, hoping to transform their understanding about the nature of the problem under investigated. The new set of understandings is applied to an implementation plan for resolution of the problem that in turn can be re-evaluated.

There were a few key features to communitybased AR worth noting for their relevance to this study. First, communitybased AR follows a hermeneutic approach to evaluation, which implies a more democratic, empowering, and humanizing approach to inquiry. Second, communitybased AR very closely parallels Participatory AR, which is discussed in the critical AR section of this review. Emancipation appears to be the only difference between the two processes. While both process involve all stakeholders, participatory AR aims to liberate stakeholders from a social injustice by changing individual actions or thinking on one hand, while simultaneously changing the culture of the groups, institutions, societies to which they belong (McTaggart, 1997). Within the framework of critical AR, emancipation was a significant factor in the inquiry and expectations. Within the framework of community-based AR, Stringer acknowledged the necessity for confrontational action in some situations, however, it is fundamentally a consensual approach to inquiry and works from the assumption that cooperation and consensus making should be the primary orientation of research activity (p. 21).

Action science grew out of the work competed by John Dewey and Kurt Lewin (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Schn, 1983). A variety of definitions written by either Chris Argyris or Donald Schn are available describing action science. In fact, Friedman (2001) compiled four of their definitions into a composite definition. Action science is a form of social practice which integrates both the production and use of knowledge for the purpose of promoting learning with and among individuals and systems whose work is characterized by uniqueness, uncertainty, and instability (p. 159).

Action science according to Argyris and Schn (1996) focused on the problem of creating conditions for collaborative inquiry in which people in organizations function as co-researchers rather than merely as subjects. They further conveyed that people were more willing to share information about their own intentions and reasons for actions when they share ownership of the process generating, interpreting, testing, and using the information.According to Ellis and Kiely (2000), action science was an inquiry approach suited to an organization culture, which appreciates double-loop learning and was committed to interpreting knowledge in a way that revealed organizational patterns, process, and defensive routines. Action science intervention was psychological since it explored innermost feelings and emotional reactions, some of which were protected by personal defense mechanisms. As these defense mechanisms breakdown, individuals may feel vulnerable and exposed. Risks to self and others involved were reduced if the group themselves were sensitive to others feelings and ensured participants finish sessions on a positive note.

Critical AR. Critical AR owes its origins to theories that intended to enlighten, empower, and emancipate people from oppression (Brown and Jones, 2001). This branch of AR includes participatory, southern participatory, contemporary feminist analysis, (Greenwood & Levin, 1998) as well as some educational initiatives (Mills, 2000) and was drawn from the critical theory of Habermas, neo-Marxism, and liberationist philosophies. Kemmis (2001) believed, this form of AR aimed at improving outcomes and the understanding of practitioners, assisting practitioners in work critiques, as well as intervening in the cultural, social, and historical process of everyday lives and activities.

OBrien (2001) outlined a similar theoretical framework, referring to critical AR as radical AR and described its roots as Marxian - dialectical materialism. Additionally critical AR had a strong focus on overcoming of power imbalances and emancipating those with little power. Participatory AR often found in liberationist movements and feminist analysis both strived for social transformation via an advocacy process to strengthen peripheral groups in society.

The common descriptor in each of the provided perspectives of critical AR was the term emancipatory. The goal of critical AR was liberation through knowledge gathering (Mills, 2000).

Critical AR had its roots in the critical theory of the social sciences and humanities, and draws heavily from postmodern theory, challenging the notion of truth and objectivity that traditional scientific theory relies upon. According to Mills (2000), postmodernists argue that truth is relative, conditional, and situational, and that knowledge is always an outgrowth of prior experience (p. 8). Further, critical AR pulls apart and examines the mechanisms of knowledge production while questioning many of the basic assumptions on which modern life is based.

Numerous AR approaches and processes were included under the umbrella of critical AR. There was little standardization of nomenclature and what one researcher referred to as participatory AR another researcher referred to as participator research or emancipatory AR. Action research terminology was always complex, and nowhere more than when describing participatory action research (PAR). For some, PAR and AR indicated the same process, for others the process was very different (Greenwood & Levin, 1998).

According to McTaggart (1997), PAR described a convergence of traditions in certain kinds of action research and participatory research. The term participatory was a necessity that distinguished authentic action research from the miscellaneous array of research types that fall under the descriptor action research, when requesting information from databases. The term action research was used to describe almost every effort and method under the sun that attempted to inform action in some way. When contemplating work or trying to distinguish work that claims to be participatory action research, McTaggart suggests three general questions be asked.

How is this example participatory research? What does this example tell us about the criteria we might use to judge claims that an endeavor is participatory action research (to test our theory of what participatory action research is)? And most important of all, what contributions has this example made to the improvement of the understanding, practice, and social situation of participants and others in the context described? (p. 26)

The process of PAR was inadequately described in terms of mechanical steps or sequence, because it is not a self-contained process (Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998). PAR does involve a spiral of self-reflective cycles of: planning a change, acting and observing the process, reflecting on the process, and finally re-planning based on the outcome of the action initiated and resulting change. In reality, these stages or steps overlapped, and initial plans quickly became obsolete in the light of learning from experience. The process was fluid, open, and responsive. The steps were not as important as the participants involvement, and knowledge gained as well as the evolution of their practice.

The future of PAR looks promising, as it continues to grow in popularity and evolve contextually. As a result of the 1997 World Congress (on AR), Fals Borda (2001) identified seven emergent tasks that would lead to further growth of this field of inquiry. Additionally, he emphasized that the merging ways in which participation, action, and research were articulated would determine the success and survival of different PAR schools. He argued the positive effects that PAR has on communities, cities, families, churches, enterprises, and business must be considered, as well as the fact that PAR can contribute to advances in science and technology, as well as changing social patterns and enrichment of human culture.

References

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Argyris, C., & Schn, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, methods and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Baker, C. R. (2000, December). Towards the increase use of action research in accounting information systems. Accounting Forum 24, 366-379. Retrieved November 24, 2002 from the Masterfile database.

Barker, J.A. (1992). Paradigms: The business of discovering the future. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Brown, T., & Jones, L. (2001). Action research and postmodernism: Congruence and critique. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Dick, B. (1997). A beginners guide to action research. Action Research International. Retrieved June 8, 2001 from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web site:

http://www. scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari/arr/guide.htmlDick, B. (1999). What is action research? . Retrieved October 4, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web site:

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/whatisar.htmlDick, B. (2002a). An action research bibliography. Retrieved

October 6, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web site: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/biblio.htmlDick, B. (2002b). Recent books on action research and related topics. Retrieved October 30, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web site: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/books.htmlEllis, J. H. M., & Kiely, J. A. (2000). The promise of action inquiry in tackling organizational problems in real time. Action Research International, Paper 5. Retrieved March 7, 2001 from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web site:http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-jellis00.htmlFals Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins and challenges. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 27-37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Flood, R. L. (2001). The relationship of systems thinking to action research. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 133-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Friedman, V. J. (2001). Action science: Creating communities of inquiry in communities of practice. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 159-170). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, D. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests (Shapiro, J. J., Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1968)

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3). Retrieved October 7, 2002 from the Masterfile database.

Kemmis, S. (2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jrgen Habermas. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 91-102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In Atweh, B., Kemmis, S. & Weeks, P. (Eds.) Action research in practice: Partnership for social justice in education (pp. 21-36). New York, NY: Rutledge.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Levin, M., & Greenwood, D. (2001). Pragmatic action research and the struggle to transform universities into learning centers. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 103-113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts & field training in social science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Masters, J. (1995). The history of action research. Action Research Electronic Reader. Retrieved November 24, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web site:

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arr/arow/masters.htmlMcNiff, J. (with Whitehead, J.) (2000). Action research in organizations. New York, NY: Routledge.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project. New York, NY: Routledge.

McTaggart, R. (Ed.). (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences. Albany, NY: SUNY.

McTaggart, R. (1998). Is validity really an issue for participatory action research? Studies in Culture, Organizations, and Societies 4(2). Retrieved July 8, 2001 from the Masterfile database.

Mills, G.E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

OBrien, R. (2001). An overview of the methodological approach of action research. Retrieved July 3, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.htmlReason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001) Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 1-14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schein, E. (2001). Clinical inquiry/research. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 228-237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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 2. Retrieved

March 7, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web site: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari/ari-swepson.htmlWadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research? Action Research International. Retrieved March 7, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web site: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari/ari-wadworth.htmlWortley, S. (1996). Business as usual or action research in practice? Action Research Electronic Reader. Retrieved November 24, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web site:

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arr/arow/rwortley.htmlPAGE