Category: Action Research

It is impossible to separate active research from politics especially if it means transforming peoples lives. Even so, researchers who might be interested in applying their skills and training to address social issues find it challenging to mix politics and psychology.

In this book, Mary Brydon-Miller says that the goal of Participatory Action Plan is to initiate social transformation and community empowerment by enabling researchers who undertake to work with communities to achieve desired social change by using psychology to support social, economic and political values.

Beginning with definition of the concepts of Participatory Action Research which includes the little known concept of “participatory research”, this book goes on to describe a number of theories and principles of building viable projects through practical teamwork, the role of the researcher and that of the subject, describing the benefits of involving the researcher in the political life of the subject.

The next step referred in the subtitle, explains the methods that can be used by the researcher to engage the community in meaningful research that can help solve its problems. Finally, there is a lengthy explanation of how psychology can be combined with politics to help solve social problems openly and democratically. Issues touching on developing countries, homeless persons, and role of politicians have been discussed.

Additional points worth mentioning are the inclusion of the quote, “Be There When it happens” by the late poet Joel Oppen-heimer. A well structured book, Education, Research and Action does a good job of describing the benefits of combining psychology with politics, but also why the community should be included in every research.

Class Experience and Conflict in a Feminist Workplace: A Case Study

In work places, perception of class among Euro-American women comes as a result of differences in location of work place and barriers to access of equal work relations in the place of work. In this book, Sandra Morgen uses a health clinic case study to explain how women come to perceive themselves as being either middle or working class.

Contrary to popular belief, coalitions, alliances and work relationships between working-class and middle class women and between Euro-American and women of color do not suggest the existence of sisterhood.

This book begins by discussing the meaning of class to Euro-American women by referring to a health clinic run jointly by middle and working class women workers. The book goes on to explain how class is identified, class differences understood and how they impact on activities in the clinic i.e. are there oppressive class relations etc. A discussion of class theories follows.

The next step involves the discussion of the background and history of a health group called community women for health that was jointly founded by Euro-American working and middle class women. This is followed by a discussion of politics within CWH that saw the middle class women fire the working class. Causes for this outcome of events i.e. strained class relationships; conflicts due to working conditions and class based policies have been discussed.

Additional points worth noting include four separate stories of Betsy, Jesse, Margret and Liz who were interviewed. The well structured book explains equal contributions made by both classes and how middle class came to dominate the clinic by discriminating against their peers. The book ends by giving a conclusion and recommendation.

Feminism and Method: Ethnography, discourse Analysis, and Activist Research

The scientific description of customs of cultures and individual peoples or ethnography is subject to bias every time the relationship between the researcher and the subjects gets out of hand. In this book, Nancy Naples states that negative consequences arising as a result of such bias can be eliminated by taking into account methodological strategies developed by researchers who took postcolonial, postmodern and feminist standpoint.

This is so because members of a community being researched are participants in the research process and certainly do affect the outcome of the research.

This book begins by discussing what researchers can to avoid affecting the lives of research subjects. The book goes on to explain how a feminist approach can be used in ethnography, discuss challenges of ethnography, limits and possibilities of reflective practice i.e. it can make interactive activities between researcher and subjects to be time consuming due to lengthy consultations.

Next step involves explaining how weaknesses of reflective practice can be reduced. The book concludes by briefly discussing the role of feminist theories in ethnographic research and its shortcomings.

Additional points worth noting is the interview conducted to demonstrate reflective practice and the relevance of findings obtained. The book which uses technical terms to bring forth its case does a good job of explaining how bias in ethnography can be overcome so as to give reliable end result. The subjects under study seem to be aware of the bias and feministic materialist approach has been noted to be the best solution to this problem.

Theoretical Bases for Coalition Building: An Assessment of Postmodernism

The author of this book Nancy C. M. Hart sock notes that political theory can be useful for political and policy by helping to reveal possible new coalitions and alliances. This book notes that political coalitions are formed when members of certain communities are dominated and marginalized by others. Coalitions are based on factors such as race, gender, sexuality and class.

The book begins by discussing feminist and postmodernist theories. Postmodernism and the enlightenment tradition are compared. The book also discusses the root of capitalism and it has a comprehensive essay dedicated to failures of postmodernism. The book further discusses the implications of feminist theory and contributions made by Marxist theory to coalition. The book discusses how domineering groups in a society force those dominated to reconstitute themselves into coalitions.

Under the subtopic developing alternative visions, the book suggests to the reader the sources of additional information for better understanding of the subject matter. Something else that is worth noting is the inclusion of a poem by Gloria Anzalduas that illustrates the plight of the subjugated or dominated communities.

The book contains additional short notes that give a brief overview of the kind of ideas that are being discussed in the book and that guides the reader through some of the issues that have been discussed. The book also has a list of contributors that made the work possible.

A well structured book, Theoretical Bases for Coalition Building does a good job of describing existing theories that explain the root of coalitions and also describe alternative theories that can be used to explain the origin of coalitions.

Feminist Approaches to Social Movements, community and Power: Some Theoretical “Musings” about Gender and Resistance

We are living in times of profound changes. These changes have changed the way knowledge is produced in the field of international relations. In this book, Marianne H. Marchand notes that the most important of these changes include cold war and globalization and the impact that these have had on IR. The end of Cold war changed how international politics were viewed earlier by introduced some subjects for debate like environment etc.

Globalization has made IR scholars shift their attention to issues like social movements, transnational corporations and the likelihood of emergence of a global civil society that could end up forming a “New World Order”. The order is often fought by people who often resist changes in global political economy.

Beginning with a discussion of knowledge of issues pertaining to globalization, gender and feminism, this book the goes on to describe a number of issues related to gender based resistance to social change, setbacks to globalization and explaining their effect the establishment of new world order.

Next come the issues referred to in the subtitle, which undermine swift implementation of globalization. Finally there are a number of provocative essays discussing diverse subjects such as gender and resistance to global changes, social movements i.e. women’s health movement etc, feminist resistance practices, globalization and politics of resistance.

Additional points worth mentioning are the inclusion of excerpts from women’s movements and other activists and some long notes from the author to help the reader understand the source of some of the ideas. The book was published in Columbia, South Carolina.

The book gives clear details of how feminist movements hinder global development.

Rethinking Feminist Organizations

Despite the increase in popularity of social feminist movements scholars continue to overlook some strategies, ideologies and forms embodied by feminist organizations.

Patricia Yancey Martin who is the author of this book argue that most scholars who are involved in judging feminist organizations pay more attention to collectivism and bureaucratic issues while at the same time choosing to overlook some qualities of these organizations. This means that a lot remains to be discussed especially when it comes to comparing non feminist and feminist organizations.

The author begins by outlining all key aspects of feminist organizations that he is going to discuss in the book including definitions. The book then goes ahead to discuss some contested issues, how organizations are classified of feminist and non feminist, how feminist organizations lose power by working more with the government, internal structure of the organization, what distinguishes a feminist organization from the others and the ten dimensions or aspects of a feminist organization.

The most important thing done by the author is to define the concept of feminist organizations comprehensively together with all associated terms. This is closely followed by essays discussing all of the ten dimensions that distinguish a feminist organization from a non feminist organization.

Additional points worth noting is the note given by the author to the reader that refers him or her to an earlier version of the book that the reader can use to gain much understanding concerning the issue being discussed. The book also gives the background of the author and issues she is currently covering. The book is well structured and it describes the link between feminist organizations and social movements.

Men’s work: Men’s voices and Actions against Sexism and Violence

It is the duty of men to prevent violence perpetrated against women, however, little is known about men who commit their lives towards prevention of violence against women. In this book, Rus Ervin Funk observes that it can be a bit confusing to focus attention to men only while ignoring women victims of various forms of violence. The book focuses on and how men can prevent fellow men from perpetrating violence against women.

The book begins by giving a summary of findings of a project that was carried out whose purpose was to see how violence against women can be controlled. The book then goes on to discuss the role played by men to prevent violence against women, it then discusses the various forms of violence that exist in the society and finally the book gives details concerning the project undertaken, what the findings were and the recommendations.

The next step outlined in the subtitle, explains the need for men to re examine themselves by redefining the meaning of a real man in order to effectively tackle the problem of violence against women.

Finally, the book gives details of the outcomes of the project that involved obtaining the views of men concerning violence against women and how much the notion of being a real man contributed towards such violence. All forms of violence are discussed including sexual assault, dating abuse, sexual harassment, domestic violence, prostitution, pornography, and stalking.

Additional Points worth noting include an overview of key words to guide the reader towards understanding better the subject matter under discussion and the list of acknowledgement that gives the background of the author.

Social Movements: Creating Communities of Change

Social movements and political protests can have significant impact on politics and public policy. It is not easy trying to understand social movements. In this book, David S. Meyer says that since social movements have become a feature that is increasingly associated with modern political life, there is the need to understand them better. This requires analyzing factors of social protest movements handled mostly through feminist protest movements but have often been missing from conventional political analysis.

The book begins by discussing the phenomena of social movements and how such understanding can help social scientists understand the movements better. The book the goes on to discuss how feminist theories can be used best to explain the origins of social movements and protest politics.

The next thing referred in the subtitle, explains how social movements transform the lives of the participants. It also details additional means that can be used by social movements to engage in conventional political activities e.g. public education campaigns, running electoral campaigns, lobbying and non conventional means such as political violence, demonstrations, civil disobedience, picketing, and boycotts.

Additional points worth noting are the authors description of real life movements that helps the reader understand circumstances under which social movements are formed, what political opportunities are created and the effects that social protest movements have on culture, policy, and lives of participants.

The book focuses mainly on feminist theory and its contribution to politics, community and social life. The book ends with a note that guides the reader in understanding the context of the book.

Critical Race Theory: The Intersection of Race and Gender

The last twenty years have seen women desire to shape their lives increase. Women have realized that there is power in numbers. In this book, Kimberley Williams Crenshaw says that transforming problems that were formerly seen as individual and isolated i.e. violence against women, gays, lesbians, African Americans etc into a form of social movement can help solve these problems more effectively. The social movements give the desired political identity that helps fight race and gender based prejudices.

The book begins by discussing means of increasing membership for a social movement in order to give it more social significance. The book mostly focuses on describing gender and race aspects of violence against women of color, failures of contemporary antiracist and feminist theories to address problems faced by women of color.

The next step referred in the subtitle, explains the intersection between racism and sexism in discrimination against black women. The book also discusses the details of a field study on shelters that was conducted in Los Angeles, discrimination against women of color and high rates of unemployment among them, race and domestic violence support services.

Additional points worth noting include excerpts taken fro other books to help the reader gaining better understanding of the subject under discussion. Elaborate discussion of racism and rape occurring against women of color. The book also has additional notes that direct the reader towards sources for further reading.

This book is well structured and it gives comprehensive details on how violence against women of color can be controlled by strengthening social movements that address women problems. This can be achieved effectively by addressing individual and isolated cases of violence through social movements.

Action Research embeds the auctioning of change in a research process. The aim of researching real world problems is to make a contribution that can lead to real change. In most research works, this contribution is limited to knowledge; hence, leading to the need of action research. Action research can be practical in business, healthcare, and education because it improves practice, policy, as well as, programs (O’Leary, 2005).

In addition, action research is essential in community development work because it empowers communities. Action research shares key elements with quasi experimentation and evaluative research with a common goal of empowering researchers. This enables the practitioners to improve their practice by understanding how to contribute to their own learning and career development.

Formulating a research question is one of the components in both qualitative and quantitative research (Neuman, 2006). In developing a research problem, a researcher must develop interest in the topic (O’Leary, 2005). In addition, the researcher considers national or agency priorities, urgency of a phenomenon, as well as, the availability of resources and supervision.

The steps involved in defining a research problem include the identification of a broad topic, followed by the identification of a narrow topic. Then the researcher raises possible questions, and finally formulates objectives by using action-oriented words. When identifying broad topics, it is necessary to think of the bigger picture by understanding the issue being solved.

A researcher should think of an interesting topic by consulting secondary sources such as books and journals. A topic should be chosen based on interest and relevance, the magnitude of work involved, as well as, the levels of expertise of the researcher and the supervisor. An example of a broad topic is Drug Abuse is a Social Problem.

From the broad topic, the researcher should select a narrow topic and think how it can be used to solve the problem. After selecting a topic, the researcher must clearly define the research questions.

or example, when the researcher is interested in alcohol consumption by college students then a possible research question would be; what effects alcohol consumption has on the health of college students? It is necessary to identify the key words in the question. In the example provided the key words are alcoholic consumption, health, and college students.

In conclusion, defining a problem guides the development of hypothesis; hence, the researcher should understand the components of a hypothesis, as well as, the role of deductive and inductive research in the development of ideas and data analysis (Neuman, 2006).

References

Neuman, W., L. (2006). Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

O’Leary, Z. (2005). Researching Real-World Problems: A Guide to Methods of Inquiry. London: Sage.

Describing stage four of the ARPP

Action research involves four different steps aimed at collecting information, sampling, and providing a representation of the collected information (Sagor, 2010). The first step in action research involves the definition of the problem to investigate, the purpose of the research, and methods to define the problem. The first step includes the reconnaissance with the objective of identifying the people involved and the duration.

The second step involves the collection of data about the relevant subject of study (Sagor, 2010). Both the primary and the secondary sources are sampled with an emphasis on providing accurate information. Similarly, the choice of the source depends on the type of information and representation.

The third step is determining whether the sources have theoretical materials that support the research. The last step involves writing a report of the research. The report incorporates the activities used to collect information, the people involved, the approach of the researcher, and the findings (Sagor, 2010). Moreover, the representation of the collected information reflects the transparency of the research process and the researcher in representing the information collected from the field.

Importance of describing the intervention

According to Costello (2003), explaining the intervention in detail aims to reflect the significance of the research work. The describing process reassesses the resources used by the researcher. It is important to evaluate how the researcher conducted the information collection process. Explaining the intervention in detail reduces the challenge of going through all the information as collected from the subject area of study.

Moreover, the intervention is a summary of all the details related to the crude information collected from the participants. Writing a generalized report will help identify the areas that need improvement. In this context, such a report reveals research areas that were not covered well in the initial process of the study, and therefore, require improvement. From this perspective, the resultant material is conclusive and accurate.

How to decide upon and gather data

Deciding what of information to represent in an intervention is limited by the people who access the same. Apparently, the perception of people towards the information, the topic, and the way that it will be presented is critical in the data-gathering process. However, the audience to the information is considered special. Therefore, the choice of the material represented in the intervention is tailored to suit special needs. The intellectual capability of the people addressed is also considered. In this regard, intellectual capability varies by understanding and knowledge of the topic.

How to decide upon and use data for assessing

Using data as an assessment tool depends on the reaction from the audience and the number of responses from the intervention. Jex and Britt (2008) mention that different factors such as the representation style and the type of audience are critical in deciding on data required for assessment. Therefore, if the audience is composed of individuals who possess varying knowledge about the intervention, the representation will pass as sophisticated.

As indicated earlier, the reaction of the audience in terms of understanding reveals valuable information about the effects of the intervention. In addition, the reaction of the audience towards the topic in question is used as a basis of assessment in regard to the use of data in determining the effects of the intervention. On the other hand, the type of information presented determines if the effects of the intervention can be evaluated through data.

References

Costello, P. J. (2003). In Action Research. London, LDN: Continuum Publishers.

Jex, S. M., & Britt, T. W. (2008). The Theory Base of Organizational Development. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Sagor, R. (2010). The Action Research Guidebook: A Four-Stage Process for Educators and School Teams. California: Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

System dynamics is considered one of the fundamental approaches to systems thinking, as such an analytical model laid the foundation for the critical evaluation of engineering systems. The notion of system dynamics stands for the process of identifying and observing the nonlinear patterns within a complex system. Fundamentally, this method of thinking helps engineers estimate how the relationship of various components of a sophisticated system influences its behavior compared to the individual impact of each of its constituents. The problems faced by the researchers may be resolved with the help of system dynamics simulation models that slightly modify each of the variables in order to track changes and delays in the product or process outcome. As a result, this method is highly beneficial for cases when the interrelation between the components is so complex that it is imperative to create a graphic simulation of a process to define how each component contributes to its counterparts’ performance.

The soft systems method, for its part, does not place primary emphasis on the peculiarities of internal component cooperation. Instead, this method aims at discovering the “soft” aspects of a system, including possible external perceptions. Essentially, the soft systems approach appeals to the fact that a series of external factors exist, such as attitudes and policies, that might significantly impact the systems. Thus, in order not to overlook such an impact, it is vital to gather as much information as possible concerning one’s perception of a system and create a number of alternative system models and solutions. As a result, a number of potential paths and solutions are present for a task in a form systemigram, and an optimal decision is made. Thus, the application of the soft systems method is crucial in terms of the critical evaluation of a system in terms of the possible perceptions and outcomes.

When considering the aforementioned methods, one should note a fundamental difference in the approaches to system appraisal. In the case of system dynamics, the primary focus is placed on the interrelation between components at a given time in a given setting. As a result, there is no option to consider alternative systems simultaneously with the evaluation of the complex feedback loops and variable modifications. The soft systems approach, on the other hand, is mostly preoccupied with the critical appraisal of a system prior to implementing any changes and modifications to the system. Hence, whereas system dynamics aim at bringing understanding and insight to a complex systemic endeavor, the soft systems approach puts a system into a bigger perspective in order to estimate the course of action.

Undeniably, no approach to systems thinking should exist in isolation from others, as the ability to combine the perspectives is of exceptional value to engineering. However, if one method is to be chosen, the soft systems approach is more applicable to the modern context. While the variety of a single system under diverse circumstances is important, the ability to put a system into various perspectives is a mandatory requirement of today’s socio-economic context. According to Mello et al. (2017), the ability to account for different attitudes to a system is facilitated in the system dynamics, whereas the soft systems approach perceives this multitude as a guide to the most realistic and functional systemic model. For this reason, it may be concluded that despite the demand for a joint approach to system appraisal and examination, the “soft” aspect of systems thinking has now been prioritized in the social context.

Reference

Mello, M. H., Gosling, J., Naim, M. M., Strandhagen, J. O., & Brett, P. O. (2017). Improving coordination in an engineer-to-order supply chain using a soft systems approach. Production Planning & Control, 28(2), 89-107.

Implementation of the plan, collection of data, and dialogue

According to Action Research Paradigm Protocol (ARPP), a person, who is responsible for the implementation of any plan, must objectively assess the progress and the results. One must make sure that a problem or issue is examined from different points of view and that a researcher can keep an open mind (LeBlanc n. d. p 3).

The main problem that occurred during the stage of implementation was the necessity to collect and analyze quantitative data, and many employees of the HCZ had to be “involved in counting numbers rather than helping children. Moreover, many of managers were able to assess only their own programs, but they did not see the HCZ as a whole (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 9).

This is one of the reasons why Geoffrey Canada had to employ Betina Jean-Louis who could assess the Harlem Children’s Zone as a system. This person was able to evaluate the implementation of the plan from various standpoints and identify its possible shortcomings.

The next step of ARPP is the collection and analysis of data. At this stage, the main question to answer is how the data are recorded, collected and analyzed. This organization used various methods of data collection, namely participant surveys, the study of demographic data; moreover, they relied on the information about students’ academic performance and their school attendance (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 7).

This information was stored in the agency-wide database. This approach enabled the management of the HCZ to better understand the functioning of this organization as a system and not as a set of separate programs. Finally, while analyzing this statistical information, the managers of the HCZ attempted to see the connections between the programs implemented by this organization and the welfare of children and teenagers.

In this case, the term welfare or life improvement consists of several components such as class attendance, academic achievements, avoidance of drug use, self-discipline, and so forth (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 25). Thus, there were two variables, improvement of teenager’s welfare and the policies of the HCZ.

Another important part of ARPP is dialogue or discussion of the process and findings. A very important task of an administrator is to ensure that various stakeholders are able to voice their opinions and make recommendations. Overall, Geoffrey Canada was able to cope with this task.

For instance, he held regular meetings with program directors and executive staff so that they openly express their ideas about the new strategies as well as their benefits and shortcomings (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 13).

Yet, one has to admit that the opinions of other stakeholders, namely, parents were not taken into account. Certainly, Canada worked with parents during the development of the business plan, but they were not encouraged to evaluate the results of its implementation. This is one of the drawbacks that we can identify.

The evaluation of outcomes and reflection

While evaluating the results of any program or initiative, one has to ensure that the data under analysis is valid, credible and up-to-date. This is one of the requirements of ARPP (LeBlanc n. d. p 4). George Canada believed that the efficiency of the HCZ had to be assessed on a “child-by-child” or “case-by-case” basis (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 7).

This is the reason why they collected information about every child who participated in their programs. Most importantly, this information was gathered at regular intervals. We can say that Geoffrey Canada preferred longitudinal approach to make sure that their results were valid. It should be noted that evaluation of the outcomes showed the necessity of other educational programs for at-risk children.

For example, it became evident that many of them required help with their reading or math skills (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 10). We can argue that such unforeseen results are an inseparable part of action research.

They indicate that the results of the change were evaluated objectively (Coghlan & Brannick 2009, p 14). Overall, we can argue that despite some shortcomings Geoffrey Canada complied with the principles of Action Research Paradigm Protocol.

The strategies employed by Geoffrey Canada

The strategies employed by Geoffrey Canada were premised on the idea that every public organization has to strive for continuous improvement. This is the reason his work on the business plan, its implementation, and evaluation closely resemble the Action Research Paradigm. Every step that this organization takes is carefully evaluated. Most importantly, this evaluation gives rise to a new set of initiatives.

This approach explains why so much attention was paid to the collection and collection of quantitative data. Additionally, Canada’s willingness to achieve continuous improvement is reflected in his willingness to involve other employees into discussion. Another important strategy is the systemic approach.

As it has been mentioned before, Canada encouraged senior managers to see the HCZ as a system in which components interact with one another. This is his most important contribution to the success of this agency.

Reference List

Coghlan D. & Brannick T. (2009). Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Grossman A. & Curran D. (2004). The Harlem Children’s Zone: Driving Performance with Measurement and Evaluation. Harvard Business School.

LeBlanc A.(n. d) “Action Research Paradigm Protocol”. Capella University. Web.

Outline

• Introduction to Participatory Action Research
• Summary of Practicing Participatory Action Research by Kidd, S.A., and Kral, M.J
• Summary of Participatory Action Research: Reflections on Critical Incidents in a PAR Project by Santelli et al.
• Summary of Participatory Action Research in the Contact Zone by Torre, Fine et al.
• Conclusion

Introduction to Participatory Action Research

Participatory action research is a technique of carrying out a research through action. What this means is that the objects of the study are also actively involved in the research process; they become researchers themselves. This research technique is known by different terms including collaborative inquiry, emancipatory research, action learning, and contextual action research (O”Brien, 2001).

In participatory action research, a researcher identifies a problem that afflicts a certain group of people or community. However, the researcher does not proceed to study the problem and find the solution without first contacting the group/community that is afflicted by the problem. This group of people becomes part and parcel of the research process. They agree on the existence of the problem, find ways and means of solving the problem and if their identified solutions do not yield desired result, they repeat the whole process again until the problem has been solved. The participatory action research is therefore a technique used to solve common problems.

However, it has other features that distinguish it from the ordinary problem-solving activities. First, participatory action research, unlike common problem-solving activities, is a scientific study and therefore follows the scientific systematic process. This process involves: identification of a problem, statement of hypotheses to be tested, collection of data, analysis of data, presentation of data, and making inferences and conclusions from the data analysis that help to confirm or reject the hypotheses and provide solutions to the problem in question. Second, participatory action research uses the objects of the study as researchers.

The people experiencing the problem in question are actively involved in the research process. They help to define the goals of the study, help to collect, analyze and present the data and make inferences from the data analysis. Third, participatory action research has a social aspect in it. This means that the research process happens within a real-life circumstance rather than in experimental situations, and its objective is to provide solutions to real-life difficulties. Lastly, the main researcher is not obligated to remain objective. This characteristic differs tremendously from other research techniques whereby the researcher is forced to remain objective and avoid personal bias while carrying out his research.

In participatory action research, the researcher is allowed to have and show bias towards other participants involved in the study. He is allowed to have differing opinions with the other participants, voice these differences and discuss them with the participants. The participatory action research as a process has five main steps that are followed. These steps were postulated by Gerald Susman in 1983. The first step involves the identification of a problem.

Once a problem has been identified, data is collected to provide the researchers with a clearer prognosis. The second step involves a collaborative statement of the probable solutions to the identified problem. The researcher and participants then unanimously agree on the best solution from the list of the possible solutions. The third step involves the collection of data pertaining to the problem and the agreed-upon solution.

The collected data is then analyzed using the most appropriate data analysis techniques. The results of the data analysis are then interpreted and inferences are made concerning the success or failure of the proposed solution. If the proposed solution is not successful in solving the problem, the same process will be repeated using other possible solutions until the best solution to the problem is identified.

Summary of Practicing Participatory Action Research by Kidd, S.A., and Kral, M.J

Kidd and Kral’s article gives a general idea of a number of important theoretical and practical dimensions of participatory action research. Kidd and Kral begin by defining the term participatory action research. To them, it is an inquiry technique that involves the participation of members of a group of community that has been affected by a particular problem. The group of people come together to identify and define the problem at hand and come up with solutions to the problem.

PAR has several attributes that include: understanding, mutual involvement, change and a process that encourages personal development (Kidd and Kral, 2005, p.187). Both the researchers and participants are actively engaged in the whole research process that encompasses the development of objectives and methodological tools, the collection of data, analysis of data, interpretation of data, and implementation of the results in a way that will address the identified problem.

According to Kidd and Kral (2005), change is an important element of the PAR. The change comes about when the results of the study are implemented and the problem is solved thereby making the lives of the participants and those of the larger community better than they were before. A PAR project can be introduced in a community in several ways. First, a group of people may be facing a problem that they need to address.

This group of people can incidentally come into contact with a researcher together with whom they can come up with a project that will help them to solve the problem at hand. Secondly, a researcher may perceive a problem that afflicts a certain group. The researcher will then approach the group of persons and introduce to them the concept of PAR through which they can come up with a project and solve the problem. What is most crucial to the PAR is the mutual dedication and sense of responsibility among both the researcher and the participants. The attitude of both the researcher and participants is important and will determine the success or failure of the project.

The researcher, especially, should be open-minded, flexible and receptive towards the opinions, perceptions and ideas of the group members. Likewise, the group members should respect the opinions and ideas of the researcher. Most importantly, the group members should respect each other’s opinions and suggestions. All this calls for continuous and healthy dialogue among all the participants.

According to Kidd and Kral, the participatory action research is a process that involves four main stages: reflection, planning, acting and observation (2005, p.189). The group of people faced with the problem at hand come together to share their experiences pertaining to the identified problem. They then plan on the course of action that can be taken to deal with the problem. After planning, they execute their plan according to the unanimously agreed terms.

Once the plan has been carried out, observation is made as to whether or not the problem has been solved. The researcher, in all this process, has to be part and parcel of the group. If he is not a member of the group, he has to live amongst them and feel exactly what the group is feeling about its experiences with the problem. Through this, the researcher gains an insight into the lives and experiences of the participants in the context of their own world. On the other hand, expert knowledge is also passed from the professional researcher to the participants, particularly knowledge about the research process.

Kidd and Kral (2005) emphasize that the PAR is not a research method per se. the method used to gather and analyze data is not identified beforehand. What happens is that once the problem has been identified, research questions pertaining to the problem are formulated. It is these research questions that guide the research process. As a result, the methods used may differ from one PAR project to another. Additionally, the method used to generate knowledge also differs from one PAR project to another and may include storytelling, survey and drawings (Kidd and Kral, 2005, p.190).

Summary of Participatory Action Research: Reflections on Critical Incidents in a PAR Project by Santelli et al.

Santelli et al.’s article is a description of a participatory action research project that was intended to assess Parent to Parent programs in five American states. The PAR team had two groups of people: parent leaders of Parent to Parent programs as well as volunteers of the program, and academic researchers. The definition of PAR that was adopted by Santelli et al. was that given by Bruyere (1993).

According to this view, PAR involves the need to define pertinent issues that affect individuals and families of individuals with special needs. It also involves coming up with solutions that best address these issues and which bring about meaningful changes in the lives of the afflicted individuals and their families. The PAR project in this case was initiated through the chance meeting of parents with disabled children and researchers during the 7^th International Parent to Parent Conference held in April 1992.

The problem that arose from this chance meeting was the lack of quantitative data that proved the effectiveness of the one-to-one Parent to Parent match. The initial meeting involved only five people: three parent leaders and two researchers. The small group however planned another meeting that would involve more parent leaders and more researchers. The researchers selected were university-based and majority of them had experiences with disabilities either in their own families or through their research work.

The PAR team involved in this project therefore consisted of both professional researchers and the subjects of the study (members of the Parent to Parent program). There was therefore a great need for collaboration and team building; a major characteristic of any PAR project. A lot of time was needed to comprehend the Parent to Parent program, its goals, mission and vision. There was also the need to come to a consensus about the terminologies used and roles assumed by all the participants.

By the end of such sharing and discussion, all the participants including the researchers had a unanimously-agreed conception of the program in question. Both the parent leaders and the researchers were willing to participate in the study and more willing to accommodate the views, perceptions and opinions of each other. Once the problem had been identified and agreed upon, the PAR team then embarked on the next task: formulation of the research questions.

The parent leaders of the team initiated a discussion about the impact that the Parent to Parent program has had on them and other parents. The researchers were active in this discussion by asking questions, clarifying information and requesting for more information about the program. When this discussion was done, the PAR team collectively agreed upon the goals of the Parent to Parent program as well as the research questions that would guide the study.

The next task was to choose the research design. A number of suggestions were made both by the researchers and the parent leaders. All these suggestions were discussed by the team including their strengths, weaknesses and applicability to the project. In the end, it was collectively agreed that an experimental/control group design would be used as the research design. The sharing of expertise and knowledge that characterize PAR was highly evident in this project.

The parent leaders shared their knowledge of the Parent to Parent program with the researchers. On the other hand, the researchers were very instrumental in matters pertaining to the research design. Santelli et al. argue that, “without the explanation from the researchers about the importance of a large sample, the parents might have limited the size of the study and thus reduced its power to detect group differences,” (1995, p.215). The collaboration between the parent leaders and researchers continued throughout the research process; from data collection to conducting the study to data analysis.

Numerous meetings were held both physically and through telephone to discuss any task at hand. The researchers were helpful especially in the data analysis. They explained the results of the analysis to the parents and more questions were formulated from the data analysis. The findings of the study were discussed among the parent leaders and the researchers. These findings were then used by the parent leaders to improve their Parent to Parent programs. This PAR project was highly successful because there was a shared vision among the PAR team members, clear definition of roles, and the willingness to listen to and learn from all the participants (Santelli et al., 1995, p.221).

Summary of Participatory Action Research in the Contact Zone by Torre, Fine et al

Torre et al. carried out a participatory action research to confront the unfairness of public education and the prison industrial complex. The participants ranged widely from high school students to college faculties, artists, poets, writers, graduate students and college students (Torre, Fine et al., p.23). The PAR team, collectively known as a contact zone, consisted of participants with experiences that varied greatly. Some participants were advantaged youth and adults while others were marginalized. Yet, the PAR team used these great differences to facilitate advanced thinking and research on educational injustice and the need for change.

The project, known as Opportunity Gap Project was initiated when a set of uptown school administrators of integrated districts met to discuss the disturbing achievement gaps between Asian-American, White American, Latino and African American students. The administrators wanted to get to the root cause of the achievement gaps. They therefore invited members from the Graduate Center of the City University to make up the research team.

The team discussed and agreed that there was a need to include a wide range of students both from suburban and urban schools as part of the research team. The youth researchers were selected over a period of three years and were drawn from different groups such as English as a Second Language, the Gay/Straight Alliances, discipline rooms, student councils and AP classes (Torre, Fine, et al., p.28).

During the first meeting between the students and the researchers, the students argued that the framing of the research problem was biased against the students. It was therefore agreed that the research problem would be changed from achievement gap to opportunity gap. Numerous discussions and meetings were held by the researchers in different settings; from local schools to research camps, community and university settings. During the initial session, questions and design were developed by the professional researchers but were later reviewed by the youth researchers who, not liking what they saw, revised and amended them.

The next session involved individual research in individual schools, communities and organizations by the youth researchers in consultation with the professional researchers. The researchers also collectively agreed on the research questions they would ask, the sample elements they would interview as well as the techniques they would use to carry out the study. During the three-year period of the study, the researchers studied widely historical events that were shaped by discrimination in schools based on race, language and sexual identity (Torre, Fine, et al., p.30). Data collection and analysis were done collectively using unanimously-agreed methods.

A topographical map was then created collectively by the researchers which documented the racial, ethnic and class inequalities practiced in public secondary schools, as well as the sources of such inequalities. The researchers proceeded to write articles and deliver talks pertaining to their findings.

Conclusion

Participatory action research (PAR) is a method of inquiry which makes use of the objects of the study by making them to be part and parcel of the research process. PAR recognizes that people will learn best and practice what they have learned only if they are active participants of the learning process. As such, it calls for great collaboration between the researchers and the participants. PAR as a process has a number of phases which include: problem identification, statement of possible solutions, data collection and analysis and making inferences from the data analysis.

The two articles and the chapter from the book that have been summarized above make use of the participatory action research in their studies. All the stages of the PAR were followed in each of the studies. What came out clearly was the composition of members from different social and academic backgrounds in the PAR team. Despite such differences, the members of the PAR team in each study worked collaboratively and harmoniously in the entire research process.

Numerous meetings and discussions were held by the PAR team members to share their experiences and information and clarify any unclear details. The meetings also facilitated the PAR team members in choosing the best solution to the problem at hand; the best research design and sample elements where applicable. The members of the population afflicted by the problem provided deep insight and understanding of the problem at hand through the sharing of their own experiences.

The professional researchers on the other hand, provided useful information and expertise on the research methodology and design tools chosen. In the end, all the studies that used PAR were highly successful in identifying the best solution to the research problem thereby cringing about effective changes in the population under study. This is the whole essence of participatory action research.

References

Kidd, S.A. and Kral, M.J. (2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52.2, 187-195.

O’Brien, R. (2001). An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research. In Roberto Richardson (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Action Research. João Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. Web.

Santelli, B., Singer, G.H.S., DiVenere, N., Ginsberg, C., and Powers, L.E. (1998). Participatory action research: Reflections on critical incidents in a PAR project. JASH, 23.3, 211-222.

Torre, M.E., Fine, M., Alexander, N., Billups, A.B, Blanding, Y, et al. (n.d). Participatory action research in the contact zone.

The All you need to know about action research (2nd Edition) action research book authored by McNiff & Whitehead provides practical guidance and an in-depth understanding of how action research can benefit professions in the field of education. Action research enables practitioners including educationists to evaluate and investigate their work. They ask, ‘What am I doing? Do I need to improve anything? If so, what? How do I improve it?” (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011, p. 45). It is more about observing, reflecting, acting, evaluating, and modifying, a process that helps to improve on new theories or discover new theories. As shown, action research is suitable when one wants to improve understanding and develop one’s learning and other people’s learning. This helps educationists improve on their evidence-based teaching mechanisms.

One of the remarkable highlights is in Part III. The section sheds light on designing, planning, engaging literature, and initiating the action plan during the action research process. Most action research focuses on the ‘out there’ social world (doing things while focusing on persons you are dealing with). However, one also needs to focus on the ‘in here’ mental world (reflect and think about what one is doing when performing the research). The ‘in here and ‘out here’ world planning requires an action researcher to address his/her concern for the research, the action to take, data type to be gathered, judge how his education influence the research, ensure that the conclusions are reasonable and evaluate research validity.

When it comes to designing an action research project (Part III), one should develop a conceptual/theoretical framework that details reasons that have subjected one to undertake the research. The conceptual framework(s) should link to literature ideas; what key authors have noted about concepts one has included. In addition, the design process should include the methodological framework to detail how to conduct the research process. The methodological framework chosen should communicate openness to novel possibilities; necessitate systematic inquiry and continual critique.

Part IV details how to get compelling evidence to keep away suppositions and opinions, which may nullify the claim, a very fundamental part of action research. Compelling evidence narrows down to data. To gather quality data, one needs to determine the kind of data one is looking for and find out the most appropriate place to gather it. The best place would be in one’s field of practice where data collection opportunities are always available. One also needs to analyze; sort and store data to generate quality evidence. When doing this, one should avoid social closure (thinking that one is right and the rest are wrong), and professional closure (comply with professional experience/knowledge) that can generate bias. To monitor the quality of the data collected, it necessitates one to re-think, reflect and use ‘critical friends to help correlate the data gathered, the process used to gather it, and the real intention of the action research process to see the research is on the right track. This helps to scrutinize the data gathered and develop ideas to enhance data quality.

For the public domain to validate the research claim, an action researcher needs to test the legitimacy and validity of the claim epistemologically and methodologically (part five) after collecting quality data. This is done by creating a self-evaluation report that shows that one is contributing to public knowledge. In the report, the researcher should articulate standards of judgment used while showing his/her awareness of the research problems that exist. This ensures that what the researcher says is logical in association with the researcher’s ability to produce a coherent narrative account showing the transformational process, issue identification stage to original knowledge claim stage. In addition, this ensures that what the researcher says is truthful, he/she is authentic (show how values are or are not realized), and speaks appropriately (demonstrate socio-political and cultural forces supporting his/her knowledge).

Action research also needs to disseminate and share the value of his research to the public. This is where the research determines who should tell the story, which voice should be heard. The voice should sound truthful and comprehensible. Hence, a researcher should come up with high-quality accounts by taking up an interpretive approach, which acknowledges practitioners are actual participants thus validating them as research-observer. Apart from this, researchers should incorporate the ‘underprivileged’ (unheard) voices by using real case stories. This also happens when writing a research report. The voice used should indicate that the report is for scholarly practice; should not only contain the importance of the research but also what the researcher has learned from the practice coupled with an analysis, which should be in a reflective commentary form. While disseminating the research, the research’s significance should be explained about the researcher’s line of work and its ability to transform the entire field of education. This is the only way that a research project is included in scholarly works; demonstrated to be of the highest quality with the ability to benefit persons in the field of education around the globe.

Reference

McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2011). All you need to know about action research (second edition). London: SAGE.

Introduction

Change and innovation are invaluable for a competitive organization. Action Research (AR) is an approach that appears to offer a consistent guideline for turning innovation into a continuous process that becomes naturally customized to the changing context in which a user company finds itself. In order to describe AR, a literature review on the matter is provided in this paper with regard to the impact that this approach may have on the activities of an organization.

Literature Review

In the first chapter of their work, “Introduction: Action Research, Diversity, and Democracy” Greenwood and Levin (2007) provide a quick overview of their view of AR. According to Greenwood and Levin (2007), action research (also called “participatory research”,” human inquiry”, and “action science”) is an approach to “social research carried out by a team that encompasses a professional action researcher and the members of an organization, community, or network (“stakeholders”) who are seeking to improve the participants’ situation” (p. 4). In turn, Coghlan and Brannick (2014) define AR as both the process of research and the approach to this process. For Coghlan (2011), however, AR is more than an approach: it is a worldview “that finds expression in collaborative inquiry and learning-in-action in order to generate actionable knowledge” (Coghlan, 2011, p. 79). All these definitions have a ground, and, to demonstrate it, the features of the phenomenon should be discussed.

Features

The article by Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, and Maguire (2003) introduces readers to the journal “Action Research” and its editorial board, the members of which were the question “Why AR?” With the help of their answers, the authors have managed to define the key features of AR that include participation and democracy as well as bringing together theory and practice, learning and action. The same features are emphasized by Brydon-Miller et al. (2003), Coghlan and Brannick (2014), Salehi and Yaghtin (2015).

The very essence of AR, in the view of Greenwood and Levin (2007), lies in the ideas of democracy or liberalization. This liberalization appears to spread to every level of AR, not only the level of collaboration. It would be a bit of a caricature to use these words, but according to the authors, there should be no discrimination between methods: be they qualitative, quantitative, or mixed, they can be used in case they produce relevant knowledge. No discrimination is expected between practice and theory, action and thought: in fact, the authors suggest that drawing a harsh line between the two dimensions is harmful to research. Finally, Greenwood and Levin (2007), believe that no discrimination between disciplines is allowed: AR is an interdisciplinary approach.

Similarly, according to Brydon-Miller et al. (2003), AR does not presuppose a value-free approach to knowledge instead suggesting an “explicitly political, socially engaged, and democratic practice” (p. 13) The promotion of social justice is central for AR, and the respect towards people and their ability to understand is inconsistency with the democratization of knowledge gaining process.

The idea of bringing theory and practice together is also essential for AR. Coghlan and Brannick (2014) specifically emphasize that AR is not learning about action, but researching in action. As a result, the input data for AR keeps changing, and it must be taken into account. Coghlan (2011) dwells on practical knowing and its relation with science knowledge that results in “actionable” knowledge – the one that can be used in practice (p. 65).

AR is multidimensional in every aspect, including its roots and its current branches. Brydon-Miller et al. (2003) provide a short historical background to the phenomenon, beginning with John Dewey, and naming a number of approaches that were “disparate” but linked with the ideas concerning knowledge generation and democracy (p. 11). Similarly, Coghlan (2011) points out that the roots of the approach are numerous (including even Aristotelian philosophy). Lewin’s work, however, was especially emphasized by the author, and the key points of his study (first of all, the idea of bringing theory and practice together and the democratic ideas) have been shown. Greenwood and Levin (2007 authors point out that there are different opinions concerning AR, and they are rather reluctant to consider any view (including their own) as the “right” one. Still, AR provides its own framework for the research process.

Research Process

The key stages of the AR process within an organization are suggested in the chapter “Introducing Action Research” of the work “Doing action research in your own organization” by Coghlan and Brannick (2014). The authors suggest a plan that includes the construction (defining the problem and the context), planning, taking action, and learning stages. According to the authors, the reflection and making the resulting knowledge useful is what distinguishes AR from other research approaches. Greenwood and Levin (2007) also describe the construction stage: without using the term they point out that without defining the problem and “pooling” relevant knowledge from every possible source, AR is impossible. According to Coghlan and Brannick (2014), the aims of AR include the elimination of problems, changes in the organization, providing its members with “self-help competencies” and adding to scientific knowledge (p. 5). One could point out that the practical side of AR appears to be in favor of this sequence of aims. Still, it seems that the democracy of the approach would not allow discriminating practice and theory: both aspects of AR are equally important throughout the course of the process which is supposed to be a constantly changing and updating loop (Salehi and Yaghtin, 2015).

Impact

The expected outcome of adopting AR by an organization is considered to be positive. Greenwood and Levin (2007) suggest that the quality of research conducted with the help of AR increases. Coghlan (2011) believes that AR has bigger potential in terms of management and is not used to the limit of its possibilities. Salehi and Yaghtin (2015) point out that AR is essential for innovation, and that in turn is vital for a competitive organization (p. 300). Other researchers, for example, Cabaroglu (2014), demonstrate the impact of AR usage on the participants themselves which reminds one of the personal liberalizations that Greenwood and Levin (2007) mention as a possible interpretation of the AR democratization process. According to Cabaroglu (2014), AR may have a positive impact on the participants’ performance and skills that include improved self-efficacy, increased self-awareness, enhanced problem-solving skills, and growing autonomy.

Conclusion

Enthusiasts may regard AR as a worldview, and the reason for that, most certainly, lies in the philosophy upon which the approach is based. Still, the key features of AR that include a democratic approach to knowledge and participation along with a requirement for merging theory and practice seem to be promising to any user regardless of his or her enthusiasm. The respect for knowledge and shareholders that is expected from an AR practitioner appears to be a consistent guideline for any research. Finally, the emphasis on learning transforms AR into a loop-like strategy that is fit to be used for research in organizations that seek to improve their state and value innovation and change.

References

Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why Action Research? Action Research, 1(1), 9-28.

Cabaroglu, N. (2014). Professional development through action research: Impact on self-efficacy. System, 44, 79-88. Web.

Coghlan, D. (2011). Action Research: Exploring Perspectives on a Philosophy of Practical Knowing. The Academy Of Management Annals, 5(1), 53-87.

Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization (4th ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Salehi, F., & Yaghtin, A. (2015). Action Research Innovation Cycle: Lean Thinking as a Transformational System. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 293-302.

In qualitative research, the researcher’s attitude, opinions, and background information play a significant role in defining the outcomes of the research. Once the data is collected, the researcher applies his attitude and background information to carry out an analysis. If the attitude and background knowledge are appropriate to the case under study, the results of the study are valid and accurate. However, inappropriate background knowledge or attitude leads to a poor study, whose results are either biased or inaccurate. Kidd & Kral (2005) refer to research where the researcher participates directly in research as Participatory Action Research. They argue in the article that the attitude of the researcher determines how effective their participation will be when carrying out the research. Kidd & Kral (2005) explain that participatory action research is a dynamic process that changes with the needs, challenges, and experiences of a given group.

When taking part in participatory research, several methods are used to prepare the researcher for the task ahead. One method is the situational method. In this method, the researcher is expected first to carry out a self-assessment of his or her attitude of participation. The self-assessment helps the researcher understand the attitude changes he needs to adopt so that he or she can succeed in participatory research. The next step analyzes the right actions, participation, and knowledge required. The other possible method is referred to as critique. This method involves maintaining a critical awareness that avoids the development of ambiguity in the research. The researcher should also critique the disagreements and constraints to ensure that they are based on facts and not ambiguous ideas. In the critique method, a researcher is also expected to critique the qualities of successful research. Understanding the expectations will help him, or her guide the mental and physical participation in the right direction.

Kidd & Kral’s article describes how to carry out effective participatory research. Counseling research is a good example of participatory research, where attitudes and knowledge play a significant role. Hays, Dean, & Chang (2007) explain that in counseling, cultural awareness and training play a significant role in the counselor’s approach to certain counseling topics. The methods presented in Kidd & Kral’s article can, therefore, be applied in counseling to ensure that the counselor’s training and cultural awareness is effective in certain counseling contexts. Rowell (2006) confirms that counseling is part of PAR. He argues that in the counseling research, action research needs to be used as a link between counseling theory and practice. He emphasizes taking theory and practice as two mutually dependent activities for successful counseling research. In counseling, it should be understood that research may give unreliable outcomes due to the researcher’s ambiguity and bias. In some cases, the researchers have no idea that they are basing the research analysis on their interests or ideas. It is for this reason that Kidd & Kral (2005) explained the need for self-assessment of the researcher’s attitude and knowledge before analyzing research data. Once inappropriate knowledge and attitude are understood early enough, the necessary adjustments can be made to avoid research errors.

In conclusion, Kidd & Kral (2005) have provided a comprehensive overview of the possible ways to improve the validity of participatory action research. Since attitudes and preferences exist naturally among researchers, their effect on research outcomes can be minimized by carrying out self-assessment and making the necessary mental changes. As a counselor, I will always carry out self-assessment and ensure that my attitude is set towards achieving unbiased outcomes. For example, when counseling about drug abuse, my self-assessment will help me understand that I should eliminate the hate I harbor towards drug users and adjust my mind to perceive them as people who need my help.

References

Hays, D. G., Dean J. K., & Chang C.Y. (2007). Addressing Privilege and Oppression in Counselor Training and Practice: A Qualitative Analysis. Journal of Counseling & Development 85, 317-324

Kidd, S. A. & Kral M. J. (2005). Practicing Participatory Action Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52(2), 187–195

Rowell, L. L. (2006). Action Research and School Counseling: Closing the Gap between Research and Practice. Professional School Counseling 9(5), 376-384

Practical action research “is a paradigm of inquiry whose primary purpose is to improve the capacity and subsequent practices of the researcher rather than produce theoretical knowledge” (Bell et al., 2004, p. 1).The main feature of action research is that it triggers the researcher to set in motion change based on the feeling that human conditions can only be improved if there is change. Thus, the investigator provides the framework required for the realization of the intended change.

In order to realize the anticipated change, the researcher may work alone or he may work with his comrades but he remains the facilitator (Elliott, 1991). During the research process, the investigator learns together with the clients. In addition, the investigator must identify the problem, collect clients’ points of view, and analyze them in order to identify gaps. The researcher is the head of the process and he or she steers the analysis of results and identification of actions needed. The realization of the anticipated change requires collective responsibility. Whilst the researcher takes charge of the processes of problem identification, data collection and analysis, and the identification of actions needed, clients are required to participate in the actualization of the identified courses action.

In this research model, several different processes are done collectively; for example, “the design of the process and the action reflection cycle for both the researcher as an individual and with the clients” (Bell et al., 2004, p. 1). In addition, as much as the researcher is in charge of the whole research process, he or she engages the clients in the process of change actualization.

On the other hand, participatory action research endeavors to first change societal reality and encourage the improvement of capacity and practice of researchers (Bell et al., 2004). This research process ensures that individuals who are affected by the problem under investigation participate in the planning, implementing the suggested plan, analyzing the research findings, and actualizing the recommendations. This research process not only aims at solving the problem at hand, but also cultivating the growth and development of respondents. Generally, participatory action research is triggered by an organization; the organization uses researchers who are familiar with the social design process and relate well with the participants. The guiding principle of this research process is that we are the solution to our own problems (Cresewell, 2011). In other words, people who are affected by a given problem stand a better position of providing proper solutions to the problem at hand. This process also utilizes both local and experimental knowledge when seeking solutions to the identified problems. Participants take part in the processes of data collection and analysis. Bell et al. (2004, p. 1) argue that “the researcher cannot have tight control or agenda in terms of research topic or design, but does need to be in a situation whereby the problem is relevant and important to participants, and uses credible methods. Participatory action research not only leads to the advancement of knowledge and research, but also to the achievement of practical results (Cresewell, 2011). Three aspects come into play when this method has been used to conduct research. They are participation, action, and research.

Participatory action research and practical action have three main similarities. Both methods not only call for active participation, but also have open ended objectives and high levels of commitment from the lead investigator and respondents to the research problem and active learning (Bell et al., 2004). First, these research processes allow for the active participation of both participants and researchers in the design of the studies. It should be remembered that participatory action research calls for the involvement of people affected by the problem at hand in the planning, collection and analysis of data, and the implementation of the recommendations (Sohng, 1995). In practical action research, the researcher takes charge of the processes of problem identification, data collection and analysis, and the identification of actions needed; clients are required to participate in the actualization of the identified courses action. Secondly, in these processes “the end objectives are not directly specified in the beginning, and results from these processes are essential in solving real problems in organizations” (Bell et al., 2004, p. 1). Thirdly, these processes ensure that the researcher and participants take part in solving the problem at hand and both the participants and the researcher learn from the process.

Similarly, these two processes have notable differences. These differences are inherent in the methods employed to solve research problems. In practical action research, the research concentrates on the notion that when the process is improved, the organization is also likely to improve. Bell et al. (2004, p. 1) argues that practical action research seeks to improve practice rather than to produce knowledge. On the other hand, in participatory action research, both the lead investigator and the participants must be from the same organization. The lead investigator and the participants collaborate in the process of identifying solutions to the problem and enhancing the research method. Bell et al. (2004) argues that the goal of this process is to ensure that researchers and participants learn from the research process and become technocrats of major social changes at the organizational level.

In summary, this paper has described the characteristics, similarities and differences of practical action research and participatory action research. First, this paper has noted that practical action research “is a paradigm of inquiry where the researcher’s primary purpose is to improve the capacity and subsequent practices of the researcher rather than to produce theoretical knowledge” (Bell et al., 2004, p. 1). In this process, the researcher is the head of the process and he or she steers the analysis of results and identification of actions needed. The realization of the anticipated change requires collective responsibility. Second, participatory action research endeavors to first change societal reality and encourage the improvement of capacity and practice of researchers (Bell et al., 2004). This research process not only aims at solving the problem at hand, but also cultivating the growth and development of respondents. Generally, participatory action research is triggered by an organization; the organization uses researchers who are familiar with the social design process and relate well with the participants. Participatory action research and practical action have three main similarities. Both methods not only call for active participation, but also have open ended objectives and high levels of commitment from the lead investigator and respondents to the research problem and active learning (Bell et al., 2004). Similarly, these two processes have notable differences. These differences are inherent in the methods employed to solve problems identified.

References

Bell, J. etal. (2004). Similarities and Differences of Various Designs of Action Research. Web.

Cresewell, J. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New York: Pearson.

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes England; Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Sohng, S. (1995). Participatory Action Research and Community Organizing. Seattle, WA: J. Wiley.