ACTION RESEARCH

This research is particularly suited to the use of Action Research as the broad methodological approach to the study. The approach is ‘participatory’ (Brown & Kaplan 1981:303; Hall: 1981:455) in that the subjects of the research are also researchers. A subgroup, the Action Research Group (ARG) was formed

within the Organization that participated in: 1) the initial negotiations; 2) developing a diagnosis; 3) deciding on the approach / methods to be used; and 4) analysing and understanding, or making sense of, the process (Brown & Kaplan 1981:303) and is conducted as a collaborative inquiry (Torbert

1981:333 & 1983:272). The Action Research models are all variants of the theme: ‘Look, Act, Think’ (Stringer, 1999:17), however from where, what position, does one look, act, think, is not incorporated into any of them. Shortcomings such as this with the existing Action Research methods presented by: Lewin (1947a), Elliot & Adelman (1973), Susman & Evered (1978), Reinharz (1979a), all consisting of an iterative set of steps and often criticised for being ‘rigid and confusing’ (McNiff, 1988:33), led to the

development of a particular version of action research that I call the Intiffegrated Action Research Methodology (IARM).

Iterative Steps

Action Research had its beginnings with Lewin (1947a) whose greatest contribution, according to Marrow (1969), was that:

On the abstract level may have been the idea of studying things through changing them and seeing the effect. This theme – that in order to gain insight into a process one must create a change then observe its variable effects and new dynamics – runs through all of Lewin’s work (in Sanford, 1981:174).

The idea of taking action in the world and observing its effects is central to the Action Research model and is from where it draws its name. Lewin’s model consisted of the following iterative steps: analysis of the problem;

conceptualisation; data gathering, planning; execution; evaluation and training. This remains a far cry from the positivist’s stance that attempts to separate each of the ‘intimate family of activities that constitutes’ Lewin’s model (ibid:176). According to Susman (1981), whose model includes five similar steps (diagnosing, action planning, evaluating, and specifying learning) the phases closely parallel the steps that John Dewey (1933) outlined as

necessary for reflective thinking.

Reinharz (1981) suggests a similar ‘learning cycle’ of five steps as a model for new paradigm researchers: Acting and Experiencing; Reflecting; Integrating;

Communication and Planning; and Evaluation. He goes on to say that although the diagram ‘appears as a cycle, in actuality the image should be a spiral, with the propelling energy derived from critically reviewing the cycle just undergone and then moving on to a different cycle’ (430-431). Susman (1981) says that the researchers' confidence in the knowledge they ‘have gained increases by following the hermeneutic circle (Gadamer, 1975), or what Kaplan (1964) calls the ‘circle of interpretation’’:

Which takes the form of attempting an initially holistic understanding of a social system and then using this understanding as a basis for

interpreting the parts of the system. Knowledge is gained dialectically by proceeding from the whole to the parts then back again. Each time an incongruence occurs between part and whole, a reconceptualization takes place (Susman, 1981:99)

This process of reconceptualization is similar to Rorty’s (1991:59-80) model of recontextualization.

Structure & Process

Although the Complexity Theory of Change was developed out of reading in the physical and life sciences, interestingly its starting point, the relationship

between process and structure, is the way ‘… organizations have been defined for decades’ (McKelvey, 1999:8). Existing action research methodologies are all presented as a set of iterative steps, which leads to a focus almost

exclusively on the process boundary of the system leaving it a structurally weak methodology. The iterative steps in each case are variants on the

central action research theme of: Planning; Acting; Observing; and Reflecting. This mimics the basic process of mind as it is, and excludes the more structural aspects of the psyche.

Furthermore, action research is an interpretive approach, yet curiously none of the above methodologies begin with the identification of the researcher’s own subjective position in the wider structure of social thought - something that is regarded as ‘crucial to any interpretive understanding of social phenomena’ (Morgan, 1983:21; Rowan & Reason, 1990:xiii).

Principles Of Action Research

As already mentioned, the core principle of action research revolves around Lewin’s idea of taking action in the world and observing the effects (Sanford in Rowan & Reason, 1981:174). Such action is always undertaken with the intention to engage people in their own research on their own lives, and is inclusive of their point of view: ‘The action of action research … implies change in people’s lives, and therefore in the system in which they live’ (McNiff,

1988:3). The results of such action, it is anticipated, will be increasing self- knowledge of both the participants and the researcher: ‘Action research is … being aware and critical of [what one is doing], and using this self-critical awareness to be open to a process of change and improvement of practice’ (ibid:5-6). And, importantly, action research regards theory as only of any value if it can be demonstrated to have practical applications (ibid:8).

Personality

Reason and Rowan suggest that the validity of action research ‘is more personal and interpersonal, rather than methodological’ (1981:244). The Complexity Theory of Change suggests that the deep structure personality of the researcher, embodied in their physiology, is the primary constraint on the adoption of a particular methodology. It therefore concurs with the views of Glassner & Moreno (1989) who suggest that ‘the aims of enquiry have a great deal to do with the background and attitudes – that is to say temperament – of the investigator’ (11). And Blaikie (1993) who suggests that:

The preference for a particular set of epistemological assumptions may also be the result of personality factors; the choice between an ‘outsider’ [structure] or an ‘insider’ [process] research strategy is likely to be determined by a perceived preference for predetermined, linear

procedures as against a perceived ability to manage flexible, ambiguous processes (201).

The basic predilection toward a position in the CAS of Social Science knowledge is embedded implicitly in the deep structure personality of the child enfolded into every adult. The different positions exist in a preconscious form as

suggested in the previous chapter as a basic metabolism, or metabolic pattern, that is regulated and differentiated by the different relations between the organs and represented in the brain. Individuals come genetically predisposed to a particular type of personality of which it has been suggested (see chapter

3) there may be as few as four or five basic types. The finding that there may be as few as four or five different personality types is consistent with the idea of deep structure stability accompanied by relative simplicity, and surface structure vulnerability and complexity.

Critique Of Action Research

McNiff suggests that:

The elegance of action research is that it possesses within itself the ability to incorporate previous approaches, simply because its focus rests on the enquirer rather than his methodology. It is primarily his insights and understandings that are moved forward by his own involvement in his enquiry (1988:8).

If action research is ‘elegant’ because it is inclusive of ‘previous approaches’, then I would argue that it is at least as ignorant as it is elegant because it does so exclusively of the positivist boundary of social science knowledge:

For enquiries that rest on hard-nosed analysis of data … action research is inappropriate. For that, statistical methodologies are necessary (Reason and Rowan, 1981:7).

Another shortcoming of action research then is that its conduct is dependent on a dystonic relationship with the positivist approach. To exclude any approach is not consistent with the principles of Complexity Theory, which is inclusive of all available approaches to research.

The ignorance is increased by the focus on the individual researcher rather than on a methodology. If the individual researcher is to be the context within which validity is measured then the quality of the researcher’s intellectual schema becomes all-important, something that action research does not seek to incorporate in its method. The action research process is also focused on enhancing reflective thinking as outlined by John Dewey (1933), and all of the action research methods surveyed agree that it is primarily a form ‘self

reflective inquiry’ (Carr & Kemmis in McNiff, 1988:2). Yet by not insisting on the identification of the researcher’s position, exactly what ‘self’ are we

supposed to be reflecting on? And within what context does the reflection and evaluation take place?

Method Without A Theory

Neglecting to identify the researcher’s position within the existing context and structure of social science knowledge leads to the ungrounded focus on the research process that contributes most to the rigidity and confusion about what it is action researchers are supposed to be doing. It can lead to the projection of objectivity in an action researcher’s work whilst they remain largely unconscious of their subjective roots. This is tantamount to doing nominalist science from the realist position – albeit unconsciously. Hence the well-developed action research process remains ungrounded in the rich

structure of social thought it emerged from and as such appears as a method

without a theory. As a result, after more than 50 years, the action research process remains little more than a technique rather than a fully-fledged methodology.

TOWARD AN INTIFFEGRATED ACTION RESEARCH METHOD (IARM)