Views and issues in action research.

Abstract

Action research provides unique opportunities for the development of innovative forms of inquiry and action. However, there is considerable disagreement among practitioners about what action research is, who it is "for" and how it should be done. This dissertation explores the theory and practice of action research, as reflected in the literature and a thematic analysis of interviews with thirty-one action research practitioners. It is not an attempt to define what "true" or "real" action research is, but an effort to construct a conceptual framework to facilitate dialogue about issues and differences in action research practice. Practitioners were asked to describe a project they considered to be an example of action research. Using the method of grounded theory, the interview data were used to create seven composite profiles. These seven profiles were clustered further to identify three different views of action research: a "restricted" view which is micro-based and emphasizes social efficiency and traditional research; a "broad" view which is macro-oriented and emphasizes empowerment and social action; and a "mixed" view which attempts to integrate aspects of each of these approaches. The differences between these views in regard to how action research is conceptualized, their specific goals and desired outcomes and the perceived relationship between the relative centrality of research and action provide the major dimensions upon which differences among action researchers might be identified. Specific methodologies, processes and roles associated with each view are also explored. This study suggests that prior literature proposing dichotomous approaches to action research fails to address the complexity that exists in the field. Writings which discuss action research from a theoretical or ideological standpoint tend to overlook practical considerations such as time, resources and the involvement of community members. It was found that these factors influenced research design and implementation. Although action researchers encounter many similar issues and dilemmas, the differences among them in regard to the theory and process of social change are most significant. However, researcher's institutional affiliation and the "politics" of particular projects and their social settings also significantly influence action research practice.