Critical action research is a validation and extension of action research or participatory action research processes that combines critical theory with the action research paradigm. The critical action research process turns the traditional power hierarchy between “profes- sional” researchers and research “subjects” upside down and invokes a commitment to break down the dominance and privilege of researchers to produce rel- evant research that is able to be sensitive to the com- plexities of contextual and relational reality. In this type of research, the stakeholders of the research work with the researchers to define the problem and set the research agenda, find new ways of seeing the situation, and work toward solutions. The process empowers both the researchers and the research participants because the research effort allows discovery and exploration of power differentials in the research
relationship as well as in the community under study.
This entry describes action research, critical theory, and their integration to form critical action research. It then presents a number of examples of such research and reviews some of the challenges in using this approach.
Action Research
Kurt Lewin, one of the principal founders of action research, called for a collaboration between organiza- tional members and researchers on all phases of research from planning to analysis. Action research is characterized by three key qualities: (1) a focus on problem solving, (2) an emergent nature, and (3) a col- laborative effort between researchers and participants.
The overarching trait of action research is that it involves generation of practical knowledge useful for sustainable organizational or community change.
Action research, by definition, always occurs within practice in concrete situations. Action research is change oriented and accomplishes this by involving the people under study as co-researchers, thereby pro- viding them with the tools to effect change themselves.
Action research involves an emergent inquiry process that evolves throughout the research effort and focuses on generation of new knowledge and ways of thinking and seeing the world. In action research, sci- entific knowledge is combined with organizational knowledge in a collaborative effort designed to solve actual organizational problems. In addition, local knowledge held by the organizational stakeholders is considered to be equally as valid as, or more valid than, that held by the “professional” researchers.
Action research is more concerned with the relational cooperative process between the researcher and the researched, and with the practical nature of the research outcomes, than with following positivist research crite- ria. In opposition to positivist research, action research deobjectifies research participants by making them co- researchers rather than “subjects” under study and gives participants the opportunity to understand their (and others’) interpretations of the world.
Action research may include qualitative or quanti- tative research methods and data collection methods such as questionnaires, in-depth interviews, focus groups, informal conversations, journaling, document reviews, and observations. Action research often includes multiple methods and many different ways of knowing as it strives to be inclusive of diverse view- points. Regardless of the method used, action research Critical Action Research———139
occurs within natural contexts and often uses interpre- tive methods of analysis.
Critical Theory
Critical theory looks at, exposes, and questions hege- mony—traditional power assumptions held about relationships, groups, communities, societies, and organizations—to promote social change. Combined with action research, critical theory questions the assumed power that researchers typically hold over the people they typically research. Thus, critical action research is based on the assumption that soci- ety is essentially discriminatory but is capable of becoming less so through purposeful human action.
Critical action research also assumes that the domi- nant forms of professional research are discriminatory and must be challenged.
Critical action research takes the concept of knowl- edge-as-power, and equalizes the generation of, access to, and use of that knowledge. Critical action research is an ethical choice that gives voice to, and shares power with, previously marginalized and muted people.
Mission of Critical Action Research Critical action research, often conducted at the com- munity grassroots level, typically takes as its mission social critique—the study of marginalized, oppressed, disenfranchised, or disadvantaged populations—with the aim to promote social justice among these popula- tions. Critical action researchers do this by questioning the social implications and moral issues of action and by seeking shared understanding of the social action.
Critical action research seeks to empower people by involving them in the study of the social processes that have constructed their submissive positions in society. In the process, critical action research moves people with issues such as illness, disability, and poverty toward equal status with the people who are studying them. Thus, critical action research models a more equal or democratic distribution of power in community. The aim of critical action research is twofold: (1) improved understanding of a social phe- nomenon and (2) social transformation at a commu- nity or organizational level resulting from reflexivity and self-reflection about the hegemony in the research relationship and in the community or organization.
Critical action research requires seeing things through
the worldviews of other people and understanding, perhaps challenging, conflicting value systems.
Critical action research follows a collaborative cycle between participants and researchers of reflect- ing, planning, acting, observing, reflecting, replan- ning, and so on. Elizabeth DePoy and colleagues in 1999 suggested a model of critical action research that includes the following:
1. Recognizing and articulating a social problem 2. Convening a steering committee from among all
stakeholder groups
3. Identifying the scope of the research and the type of social change desired
4. Selecting a collaborative research team
5. Training lay researchers on the research team in research methods
6. Designing the study, including research questions and methods
7. Conducting the study and analysis
8. Reporting the findings in accessible formats to all stakeholder groups
9. Acting on the findings by planning and following through with social change
10. Identifying a steering committee for follow-up inquiry The cycle of planning, reflecting, and acting between community participants and researchers breaks down the traditional positivist research tradi- tion of certainty and objectivity on the part of the researchers. It requires a willingness for vulnerability on the part of both the researchers and the community participants as they open their own ways of thinking, behaving, and being to scrutiny and question.
However, because critical action research allows those being scrutinized to participate in the scrutiny, the level of insight and understanding resulting from the process can be deep and lasting provided that every- one involved is given the autonomy to fully collabo- rate in every stage of the effort.
Examples of Critical Action Research Critical action research is frequently conducted in many different fields of study. In education, for exam- ple, much critical action research looks at issues of 140———Critical Action Research
curriculum or teaching styles by collaborating with students and other educators. Terry Carson’s research group, “Collaborative Action Research in Peace Education” or CARPE, initiated a dialogue with other teachers and education professionals on the topic of international peace education. This process used a critically reflective process to develop and implement a practice of peace education in their respective teach- ing situations. Kathleen Chiswell, also in education, used critical action research to examine her own teaching methods and communication style. Dorothy Lander and Leona English, in adult education, used critical action research to read and respond to each other’s research through a dialogic process of reflect- ing on, analyzing, and synthesizing their writings.
Marion Walton and Arlene Archer used a critical action research framework to examine a curriculum on academic literacy. Paul Dufficy used critical action research to investigate the teaching of English as a sec- ond language in multilingual classrooms in Australia.
In other fields, Caroline Humphrey studied the per- sonal, professional, and political dilemmas of women, Blacks, people with disabilities, lesbians, and gay men within labor unions in Britain. Jonathan Fox described how Martin Diskin worked with policymakers and development agencies in Latin American studies to conduct what they called “power structure research”
in which they exposed injustice as a strategy for build- ing coalitions and motivating movements. Christine Davis’s ethnography of a children’s mental health treatment team was an interdisciplinary research pro- ject involving the fields of communication studies, social work, and mental health. Conducted in partner- ship with community agencies, this research exam- ined issues of power, marginalization, and control within these teams. It suggested a stance toward children and families that rejects the traditional hier- archical medical model of care and instead treats them as unique valuable humans and as equal partners in treatment.
Challenges to Conducting Critical Action Research
In practice, full democracy in action research is a large and difficult change from traditional research roles.
Giving research participants status that is fully equal to that of the researchers is a tall order, and inviting people to participate in research that has already been designed, organized, and set up by professional
researchers will not likely succeed in affecting hege- monic structures. In fact, simply the act of choosing a group or topic to study points out hegemonic power and control issues inherent in a social order. The research act itself, therefore, involves political choices and ramifications. Creating true change in a research relationship requires major shifts in thinking and behaving—inviting participants to formulate the origi- nal questions, design the methodology, facilitate the sessions, and lead the analysis efforts. It requires phys- ically moving the research away from the universities and into the community. It requires dissemination of the findings in nontraditional and nonacademic ways.
It most certainly requires a different type of engage- ment on the part of the “professional” researchers to allow “nonprofessional” researchers room to engage.
Effecting true change in a community or an organi- zation from action research is also a challenge.
Collaborative knowing requires setting aside assump- tions, prejudices, and even experiences brought by all research participants (both professional and lay partic- ipants). It requires focusing on the process as much as on the outcomes. It requires being open to different ways of knowing, understanding, and interpreting and having the willingness to take action and risk change.
Summary
Critical action research is an ethical choice that exposes and seeks to change existing power structures and inequalities within the community under study. It does so within a framework of smoothing out inequal- ities within the research structure. Both of these processes, at the research level and at the community level, are fraught with the challenges expected when rebelling against the status quo. This research-as- activism process leads to social change, but it is nei- ther smooth nor easy. It is, however, worthwhile.
Christine S. Davis
See alsoAction Research; Critical Theory; Participatory Action Research (PAR)
Further Readings
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985).Action science.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, C., Norton, S., & Young, P. (1998). An exploration of methodological pluralism in nursing research.Research in Nursing and Health, 21,545–555.
Critical Action Research———141
Bruce, R., & Wyman, S. (1998).Changing organizations:
Practicing action training and research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carson, T. (1990). What kind of knowing is critical action research?Theory into Practice, 24,167–173.
Chiswell, K. (1995). How is action research helping to develop my role as communicator?British Educational Research Journal, 21,413–420.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005).Doing action research in your own organization.London: Sage.
Davis, C. S. (2006). Sylvia’s story: Narrative, storytelling, and power in a children’s community mental health system of care.Qualitative Inquiry, 12,1220–1243.
DePoy, E., Hartman, A., & Haslett, D. (1999). Critical action research: A model for social work knowing.Social Work, 44,560–569.
Dufficy, P. (2004). Predisposition to choose: The language of an information gap task in a multilingual primary classroom.Language Teaching Research, 8,241–261.
Fox, J. (2006). Lessons from action-research partnerships:
LASA/Oxfam America 2004 Martin Diskin Memorial Lecture.Development in Practice, 16,27–38.
Heslop, L., Elsom, S., & Parker, N. (2000). Improving continuity of care across psychiatric and emergency services: Combining patient data within a participatory action research framework.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31,135–143.
Hood, S., Mayall, B., & Oliver, S. (1999).Critical issues in social research: Power and prejudice.Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.
Humphrey, C. (2007). Activating the hyphen.Action Research, 5,11–26.
Lander, D. A., & English, L. M. (2000). Doing research
“with”: Reading and writing our difference.Reflective Practice, 1,343–358.
Lindsay, E., Shields, L., & Stajduhar, K. (1999). Creating effective nursing partnerships: Relating community development to participatory action research.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29,1238–1245.
Tripp, D. H. (1990). Socially critical action research.Theory Into Practice, 24,158–166.
Walton, M., & Archer, A. (2004). The web and information literacy: Scaffolding the use of web sources in a project- based curriculum.British Journal of Educational Technology, 35,173–286.