Action Research http://arj.sagepub.

com/

Theory in action research

Bob Dick, Ernie Stringer and Chris Huxham Action Research 2009 7: 5 DOI: 10.1177/1476750308099594 The online version of this article can be found at: http://arj.sagepub.com/content/7/1/5

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Action Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://arj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://arj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://arj.sagepub.com/content/7/1/5.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 24, 2009 What is This?

Downloaded from arj.sagepub.com at COLORADO TECH UNIV LIB on August 16, 2013

Action Research
Volume 7(1): 512 Copyright 2009 SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC www.sagepublications.com DOI: 10.1177/1476750308099594

INTRODUCTION

Theory in action research

Bob Dick Independent scholar, Australia Ernie Stringer Curtin University, Australia Chris Huxham University of Strathclyde, UK

ABSTRACT In this prologue to the special issue on theory in action research we provide a context and an introduction for the articles that follow. We begin by sketching in some of our shared ideas on theory in action research and some of the differences between our own approaches. Then, after briefly describing the process of preparing this issue, we provide a succinct pointer to each article in the issue.

KEY WORDS

action research knowledge role of theory sense making theory understanding

construction

Downloaded from arj.sagepub.com at COLORADO TECH UNIV LIB on August 16, 2013

6 Action Research 7(1)

We will shortly invite you to accompany us on a journey through six different perspectives on theory in action research. First, we wish to tell you a little about the thoughts that preceded this issue and the process we followed in compiling it. Theory is not new to action research. John Dewey (e.g., 1916), whose work in a sense foreshadowed action research, valued theory/practice integration. In the early days of action research, Kurt Lewin (1946, p. 40) intended it to contribute to more precise theories of social change. Elsewhere, in a much-cited passage, Lewin talked about a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action (1946, p. 38). Paulo Freire (1972) valued informed action that is, action informed by understanding or theory. He too emphasized praxis, or theory/practice integration. From the beginning, action research was to be about action and research: both practice and theory. Following Lewin, a cycle or spiral, in its many similar forms, is common to most varieties of action research. Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, p. 11) described the cycle simply as plan, act and observe, reflect. For one of us it is simpler still: look, think, act (Stringer, 2007, p. 8). Here we wish to pay attention to the component variously labelled as reflection and thinking. We are interested in its relevance to theory and its relationship to action. Within the turn of the action research spiral thought guides action, which in turn guides thought. Theory and practice are interlinked. Thought draws understanding or insight from the experience of acting. Action then puts the understanding to the test. Many authors have drawn attention to this dialectic between theory and practice Cassell and Johnson (2006) and Whitehead and McNiff (2006), among several others. For instance, in Susman and Evereds much-cited 1978 article, the development of theory grounded in action was one of the six defining characteristics of action research (1978, p. 590). Raelin and Coghlan (2006, p. 676) state that action research intentionally merges theory with practice. We would therefore have expected that there would be actual descriptions of how thought derives understanding from action. We were able to find only a few.

Developing theory
Some of those descriptions of theory-building methods were our own: for example, Huxham (2003); Stringer (2004); Dick (2007). Among a handful of others, Winter (1998) has also written on the topic. From the beginning of soft systems methodology, Checkland (1981) has used a form of cognitive mapping in effect, theory building as central to his process. This current issue adds a few more authors to that brief list. We come to them shortly. Others, like White (2004), have referred to the development of theory in

Downloaded from arj.sagepub.com at COLORADO TECH UNIV LIB on August 16, 2013

Dick et al.

Theory in action research 7

action research, though without detail. Again without detail, there are processes described in the case study literature (such as that by Dooley, 2002) and social constructionist literature (such as by Turnbull, 2002) that might be used in action research. The without detail comment signals that theory may be a taken-for-granted concept. Apparently, so is its construction. Few writers seem to find it necessary to explicate what they mean by the term. Few explain the type of theory to which they refer. Few describe how theory becomes integrated into the action research process. This is evident even in the current issue, despite the explicit intention of focusing on theory. Several authors failed, at least initially, to clarify the nature of theory or its relationship to the research process. Yet it makes sense that theory is part of action and therefore of action research. When people act, they often intend that their action will have outcomes. They choose the actions that they think will produce the outcomes they want. In other words, before they act they have a theory, perhaps informal, connecting actions and outcomes. They may think of it as knowledge or understanding, which are other words for theory. If their outcomes are unexpectedly not achieved, most people are motivated to explain why not. They make sense of the event. Theory is a grand word for these everyday activities of knowing, understanding and making sense. We hasten to add that we have no intention of elevating theory into a position of eminence. There are many aspects of action research that, to our mind, are as important in achieving good outcomes for participants. But if informed action is the goal, how is the action to be informed if not by theory? Further, we believe there are researchers who are discouraged from using action research because they dont know how to develop relevant theory within an action research approach. The literature provides them with too little guidance. We know several thesis candidates who have been wary of action research for that reason. Several action researchers have used grounded theory, the theorybuilding method developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), to guide their theory development. In the information systems literature, some authors (e.g., Henfridsson & Lindgren, 2005) have embedded grounded theory within action research. Others, such as Kock (2004), have recommended doing so. Baskerville and Pries-Heje (1999) describe the combination as grounded action research. Yoong and Pauleen (2004) use the term grounded action learning for a similar process. There are also other settings where grounded theory has been incorporated in action research. They include community health (Greenall, 2006) and local government (Wild River, 2005). In this issue, the article by Latha Poonamallee is a further example. Grounded theory may be a drugless trip, as Glaser (1978, p. 28) claims. The drugless high, if it arrives, is preceded by much drudgery and sometimes frustration. Glaser acknowledges as much. Many action-oriented people are likely to

Downloaded from arj.sagepub.com at COLORADO TECH UNIV LIB on August 16, 2013

8 Action Research 7(1)

find it uncongenial. More importantly, while grounded theory can be done participatively, it isnt simple to do so. Nor does Glaser (2003) recommend such participation for grounded theory. On a related note, Morse (1998) discourages participation for qualitative research generally. Considerations such as these, and our prior interest, brought us (Chris, Ernie, and Bob) together for this special issue. It became clear that we differed among ourselves about the nature of action research and the role of theory within it. Our differences, we think, illuminate some of the issues.

The diversity
Our own views on theory show some diversity. There are similarities: all of us treat theory as emergent from and grounded in experience and action. All of us are committed to helping others bring about desired change. In some other respects we differ. In philosophy, Ernie is more committed to a constructivist stance. Bob hovers uncertainly and eclectically somewhere between a Rortian pragmatism and critical realism. Chris is interested in action research that, while bringing about change, has high quality research outcomes as an important goal. In practice, Chris emphasizes theory that is useful for both practitioners and academics. Similar to grounded theory, the theory she develops is emergent it evolves gradually as a study progresses. Her processes, though, are less rigidly defined than those of grounded theory. In addition she favours as the source of her theory the data that occur naturally as she intervenes in practical situations. Her label for her action research approach is Research-Oriented Action Research, RO-AR. Consistent with his constructivist leanings, Ernie works hard to elicit and honour the theories of the communities he works with. (In this issue, Bill Genat takes a similar approach.) Ernies interest derives from two major sources the theory that enables action research participants to clarify and describe the dynamics of the issues that are the focus of their research, and the theory that enables action research participants to strengthen their processes of inquiry. The former might be thought of as content theory, and the latter methodological theory. For example, consider participants who are grappling with the failure of a group of students to successfully engage in lessons in school. The participants have a choice. They might elicit the theories/perspectives held by the students, teachers, parents, or other stakeholders a phenomenological perspective. Alternatively, they may focus on more generalized and abstract theories/perspectives drawn from the social and behavioural sciences. The concepts used and the type of theory will be very different for these two choices. Ernies experience suggests that the primacy of phenomenological theory is required. A phenomenological approach ensures that people work from and

Downloaded from arj.sagepub.com at COLORADO TECH UNIV LIB on August 16, 2013

Dick et al.

Theory in action research 9

with concepts with which they are intimately acquainted. Other perspectives earn their place only when they can be authentically and relevantly drawn into the research process. In the examples above, students, teachers, and others may describe their experiences in everyday terms drawn from their own commonsense lexicon. At times they may be drawn to more abstract terms like class, race, gender, personality, cognitive processes, etc. But if these become inserted prematurely, they tend to inhibit the strong grounding of theory and action in the conceptual and experiential world of the participants. As people engage processes of inquiry and action they might step back from their inquiries, metaphorically, to review and evaluate the research procedures they are using. In doing so they clarify and extend their understanding of their research practices that inform their immediate quest, but potentially provide useful, more general understandings (theory) about the dynamics of action research. Theory in this case does not relate to the particular issue investigated, but to the research processes themselves. Bob shares Ernies interest in both content theories and methodological theories. The content theories consist of the understanding that participants already have about their situation and that they develop further as a study progresses. The methodological theories consist (among other things) of processes for eliciting and testing the content theories. Bob presumes that research participants do have existing assumptions about their situation, although these assumptions are often implicit. In facilitating research, his task is to elicit the assumptions so that they become first explicit, then actionable, and then actioned. He seeks to do this in ways that make the most of action researchs ability to be responsive to the people, their present understanding, and their situation. His enthusiasm for methodological theories and processes reflects many years of helping people learn action research. In particular he is interested in alternatives to grounded theory: alternatives that are simple enough and robust enough to work in the hands of novices. Simple and robust processes allow participants to become co-researchers. Drawing on both action learning (Revans, 1983) and experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) he encourages participants to reflect on their experience as part of each turn of the action research spiral.

The process
Our initial call for proposals attracted 50 enquiries. Of these, 46 became formal proposals. We invited the authors of 14 of them to expand their proposals into draft articles. One subsequently withdrew, and 13 entered into the double-blind review process mandated by this journal. Taking the reviews into account we then chose six of the articles for this issue. After revising their articles in light of

Downloaded from arj.sagepub.com at COLORADO TECH UNIV LIB on August 16, 2013

10 Action Research 7(1)

the reviews, the authors joined us in an open and collaborative review process in the style of action research. We found the choice of articles difficult. It seemed to us that all 13 papers would develop into high-quality contributions. We couldnt easily agree amongst ourselves which six to choose. Eventually we decided that a diverse collection of articles would provide a useful contribution to you, the journals readers. We thought, too, that the diversity would enrich the collaborative review process.

The papers
Despite the wide diversity, all of the papers in their different ways draw on other frameworks to assist in the creation of theory. Wendy Frisby, Patricia Maguire, and Colleen Reid adopt feminist theory as their framework. They argue that it can act as a lens through which action researchers can ask questions that might not otherwise be asked. They identify several contributions that feminist theory does, or can, contribute to action research challenging binary oppositions such as women/men, theory/practice and the like; unmasking taken-for-granted social practices; giving voice to the unvoiced or exploited. Speaking from their experience they identify the often constructive tensions that arise when this is done. Action science provides the lens through which Victor Friedman and Tim Rogers explore the qualities of good theory in their paper. They advocate explicit theory building and testing as an important component of action research studies. To that end, they identify some dimensions that can be used to judge the adequacy of theory. Drawing on a case study they illustrate in useful detail how those dimensions apply in practice. For Annalisa Raymer, the purpose of theory is to help us move from where we are to a better place. She, too, uses frameworks to make sense of data collected in an action research study. In this case the frameworks are from the field of evaluation. The frameworks can be used as taxonomies within which experiences can be organized. In her paper she describes how she applied the frameworks to generate further theory after a study was completed. In Latha Poonamallees study, grounded theory methods helped develop theory about sacredness from her research in Indian village settings. The focus of Lathas paper is her holistic non-dualist approach based on Hinduist advaita philosophy. Examples bring her study to life as she explores the results of being both insider and outsider and as she discusses the affirmations and ambivalences she experienced. Jack Whiteheads interest is in living theories. These are theories developed by practitioners to improve their own practice (usually educational practice) while contributing to educational theory. In much the same way, Jack and other educationists have refined the methods of living theory as they used them. It is

Downloaded from arj.sagepub.com at COLORADO TECH UNIV LIB on August 16, 2013

Dick et al.

Theory in action research 11

important to their approach to convey a full range of behaviour beyond what a text medium can easily communicate. The use of digital multimedia is used to illustrate the practitioners actual behaviour. In keeping with this, Jack in his paper gives links to websites where videos of educational interactions can be seen. Finally, Bill Genats approach is within the tradition of emancipatory action research. He explains how he engages local participants in generating local knowledge about their own situation. He describes how he sets up a critical reference group of stakeholders. From this group he enlists a subset of participants a focus group who generate the theory around issues that for them are dilemmas, and for the researcher are researchable questions. His approach is illustrated by an account of work done with Aboriginal health workers. So let a thousand flowers, or at least half a dozen perspectives, bloom. You have an opportunity to join, briefly, the six worlds our authors have set out for us. In the review process we invited reviewers to try to join the world of the authors rather than to impose their own worldview. We invite you to do the same. Explore and enjoy their perspective.

References
Baskerville, R. L., & Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded action research: A method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 9(1), 123. Cassell, C., & Johnson, P. (2006). Action research: Explaining the diversity. Human Relations, 59(6), 783814. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. Dick, B. (2007). What can grounded theorists and action researchers learn from each other? In A. Bryant and K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 370388). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Dooley, L. M. (2002). Case study research and theory building. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 335354. Freire, P. (1972). The pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (2003). The grounded theory perspective, II: Descriptions remodelling of grounded theory methodology. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Greenall, P. (2006). The barriers to patient-driven treatment in mental health: Why patients may choose to follow their own path. Leadership in Health Services, 19(1), 1125. Henfridsson, O., & Lindgren, R. (2005). Multi-contextuality in ubiquitous computing: Investigating the car case through action research. Information and Organization, 15(2), 95124.

Downloaded from arj.sagepub.com at COLORADO TECH UNIV LIB on August 16, 2013

12 Action Research 7(1) Huxham, C. (2003). Action research as a methodology for theory development. Policy and Politics, 31(2), 239248. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (eds.) (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Victoria: Deakin University. Kock, N. (2004). The three threats of action research: A discussion of methodological antidotes in the context of an information systems study. Decision Support Systems, 37(2), 265286. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 3446. Morse, J. M. (1998). Validity by committee. Qualitative Health Research, 8(4), 443445. Raelin, J. A., & Coghlan, D. (2006). Developing managers as learners and researchers: Using action learning and action research. Journal of Management Education, 30(5), 670689. Stringer, E. T. (2004). Action research in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). London: SAGE. Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merit of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582603. Turnbull, S. (2002). Social construction research and theory building. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 317334. White, A. (2004). Lewins action research model as a tool for theory building: A case study from South Africa. Action Research, 2(2), 127144. Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research: Living theory. London: SAGE. Wild River, S. (2005). Enhancing the sustainability efforts of local governments. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 1(1/2), 4664. Winter, R. (1998). Managers, spectators and citizens: Where does theory come from in action research? Educational Action Research, 6(3), 361376. Yoong, P., & Pauleen, D. J. (2004). Generating and analysing data for applied research on emerging technologies: A grounded action learning approach. Information Research, 9(4). Retrieved 23 January 2005, from http://InformationR.net/ ir/94/paper195.html

Bob Dick is an independent scholar, an occasional academic, and a facilitator of change for individuals, communities, and organizations. [Email: bd@uqconnect.net] Ernie Stringer is Adjunct Professor at the Centre for Aboriginal Studies, Curtin University, Western Australia. He has been Visiting Professor at the University of New Mexico and Texas A&M University. He works collaboratively with indigenous and community groups, as well as governments and corporations. Chris Huxham is Head of the Department of Management at the University of Strathclyde Business School. Her action research involves working with public, private, and community sector participants in collaborative ventures. From this she developed with colleagues the Theory of Collaborative Advantage, about which she has written extensively.

Downloaded from arj.sagepub.com at COLORADO TECH UNIV LIB on August 16, 2013