Action research 62

The previous discussion has detailed the theoretical and conceptual foundations of critical research endeavours of which critical action research is but one of many methodologies underpinned by an emancipatory intent. Action research describes a range of research activities such as participatory research, collaborative inquiry, emancipatory research, action learning, cooperative inquiry and action science – to name a few (Reason & Bradbury 2001c; O'Brien 1998). The diversity of research activities that all reside under the action research banner has made it “notoriously difficult to define” (Hart & Bond 1996, p.153). The illusiveness of a definition has led many scholars (Stringer 1999; Reason & Bradbury 2001b; Kemmis & McTaggart 2003; Waterman et al., 2001) to describe common characteristics of action research such as: collaboration, an interest in local problems, shared ownership of the research and an orientation towards action.

The complexity of the above definition and the multitude of other descriptions that have been offered about action research are suggestive of its diverse origins. The development of action research can be traced from the early work of Kurt Lewin (1890-1947), a social psychologist. He emphasised the need for research in which social scientists and practitioners worked together towards democratic social change through a problem-solving approach (Kemmis 1988; Meyer 1993; Greenwood & Levin 1998; Stringer 1999). According to McTaggart (1991 p.6), Lewin viewed the purposes of social research as having immediate relevance to social issues, such as civil rights and directly challenged the established role of the social scientists as “the disinterested objective observer of human affairs”. Lewin’s action research proceeded through recurring cycles of identifying a problem, planning, acting and evaluating. (Stringer 1999). Waterman et al. (2001, p.1) also pointed out in their review of the origins of action research that Jacob Moreno, a social philosopher, around the same time as Lewin promoted collaborative forms of social research with practitioners as researchers rather than subjects.

In the second half of last century action research was rapidly adopted in the field of education (Meyer 1993). However, it soon fell prey to positivistic critiques. For example, Hodgkinson (1957, p.79 in Kemmis 1988) described action research as having an obsession with ‘doing’, where activity was not aimed at any particular goal but for its own sake. However, during the 1970s there was a resurgence of interest in action research, initially within the interpretative paradigm, through the work of

Laurence Stenhouse and John Elliot (Kemmis 1988; McNiff 1988). During the 1980s Australian educationalists, Wilfred Carr and Stephen Kemmis (Carr & Kemmis 1986; Kemmis 1988), Robin McTaggart (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988; McTaggart 1991; McTaggart & Garbutcheon-Singh 1986) and Shirley Grundy (1988) situated action research explicitly within a critical realm. Grundy (1988, p. 333) articulated that there were three conditions “which are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for action research to exist”. Firstly, the subject matter of the project must be a social practice amenable to improvement; secondly the project must proceed through cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting (consistent with Lewinian conception); and thirdly those responsible for practice are involved at all moments of the research process. The ways in which the key characteristics of action research are operationalised within a given study depend on the particular interests with which the particular research is aligned.

3.7.1 Types of action research

Habermas’ (1972) theory of knowledge-constitutive interests has been used as a conceptual basis for delineating the different types of action research (Carr & Kemmis 1986; Boutilier et al., 1997; Grundy 1988; Holter & Schwartz-Barcott 1993). For example, Grundy (1988) placed action research within the three realms of technical, practical and emancipatory. Carr and Kemmis (1986) have referred to "technical”, “practical” and “critical” action research. Other authors have devised categories such as “technical-collaborative”, “mutual–collaborative” and the “enhancement approach” (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott 1993) and “experimental”, “organisational”, “professionalising” and “empowering” (Hart & Bond 1991, 1996). The following discussion considers the different types of action research with reference to technical, practical and emancipatory interests.

3.7.1.1 Action research based in technical interests

Technical interests as advanced by Habermas (1972) and discussed in Section 3.2.1, orientate towards predicting and controlling events in the natural environment. Technical action research is carried out by ‘experts’ or authority figures that enter the field with a pre-determined problem (Grundy 1988, p.355). The researcher, as expert, usually aims to test a particular intervention oriented towards measurable, predictable and repeatable outcomes (Grundy 1988). Kemmis (2001) explained that practice was conceptualised as an “end” in technically-orientated action research. Similarly,

Grundy (1988, p.354) returned to the Aristotelian term techne to explain that action arising from this type of research always results from participants operationalising the ideas of the researcher towards an assigned (researcher-prescribed) goal. Interaction between the researcher and the participants is ‘technical and facilitory’ (Masters 1995, p.4). Therefore, various scholars (Carr & Kemmis 1986; Grundy 1988) caution that participants may be coopted by authority figures in existing institutional hierarchies to address questions or issues that serve other external (potentially hegemonic) interests. Success of technical action research is measured by how closely the outcomes reflect the aspirations of the expert-researcher (Kemmis 2001, p.95) and for the most part, broader conditions of practice remain unchanged. The knowledge produced is largely predictive, with a focus on validation and refinement (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott 1993), with the broader conditions of practice largely remaining unchanged (Kemmis 2001).

A key criticism of technical action research is that it does not recognise practitioners’ local knowledge, de-legitimising it in favour of the conceptual parameters developed by an outside expert researcher (McTaggart 1991, p.28). Under these circumstances, participants have little or no autonomy and as such they do not internalise the researcher’s goal as their own (Grundy 1988, p.355). Without participants having a sense of ownership in the research process and its outcomes, the duration of change is usually short-lived (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott 1992). Therefore, once the expert/researcher withdraws from the situation, old ways of working, interacting and thinking tend to re-emerge. Participants are no longer “obliged to act” according to what Grundy (1982 p.356) terms “the action research game” and it is reasonable therefore to call into question the sustainability of interventions and improvements. Praxis development is effectively disabled within a paradigm that values the production of technical knowledge.

3.7.1.2 Action research based in practical interests

Practical interests emerge from an interpretative tradition. Habermas (1972, p.176) described practical interests as “aimed at maintaining the intersubjectivity of mutual understanding in ordinary-language communication and in action according to common norms”. Practical interests value people’s “lived experiences” and contribute to “wise, prudent decision making in practical situations” (Kemmis 2001, p.95). Practical action research is aimed at improving people’s understandings of their situation, their practices, and how local and historical knowledge shape their

decision-making (Kemmis 2001; Greenwood & Levin 1998). Practitioners are viewed as the experts in their field and co-participants in a collaborative inquiry. Through shared dialogue the researcher and the practitioners work together to arrive at new understandings of practice, identify problems and develop possible interventions for change (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott 1992, p.301). The role of the researcher within this mode of action research is described by Grundy (1982, p.38) as “…assisting [the practitioners] in the process of self reflection and reasoning”. Unlike technical action research, the knowledge produced by practitioners is descriptive and arises from their mutual understanding. Thus, knowledge is owned by the participants and under these circumstances practitioners are more committed to change processes, having been involved in their development (Holter & Schwartz- Barcott 1993).

Habermas (1972, p.181) has warned however, that interpretative approaches to knowledge development are flawed, as people cannot step outside their own subjectivity. Webb (1996) has explained that the subjective understandings of individuals arise out of a reality where social, economic and political conditions may limit and distort people’s understandings of their world. Thus, a lack of critical questioning within the interpretive paradigm undermines any realisation about how the forms of social interaction and communication may be distorted by dominant ideological interests. Therefore, dominant interests that shape practice remain unproblematised. Carr and Kemmis (1986, p.135) have asserted that “the scope of individuals’ intentions” and their capacity to realise a situation other than the contemporary are limited in practical action research as is the development of praxis as critically informed action.

With the conditions of practice remaining the same, changes and other outcomes of practical action research are linked directly to individuals who are involved in collaboration and action (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott 1993). Changes may be short lived; as individuals exit the setting they take with them the collaboratively- developed knowledge about their situation, its problems and actions for change (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott 1993; Carr & Kemmis 1986). Furthermore, when new people enter the setting who have not participated in defining the problems or shared in knowledge production, their ability to contribute to or continue change processes is limited. Concerns about sustainability are highly relevant to the aged care

environment, where the workforce is characterised by significant turnover (Martin & King 2008).

3.7.1.3 Critical action research – based in emancipatory interests

Action research, informed by what Habermas referred to as an emancipatory interests, has been described as “critical” Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis 1988, 2001), “empowering” (Holter & Schwartz-Barcott 1993), “enhancement” (Hart & Bond 1996), or “emancipatory” (Grundy 1988; Kemmis 2001) action research. Henceforth, “critical action research” will be used to refer to the approach adopted in the study. As discussed earlier in this chapter (section 3.3), emancipatory interests are orientated towards the investigation and critique of ideology and power within society. Habermas (1974, 1972) argued that critique was the method required to produce emancipatory knowledge. It is a collaborative, dialogic approach through which participants assume self-critical and critically-reflective stances to problems under investigation (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988). Hence, critical action research is conceptualised as a method that could be used by practitioners to understand and challenge dominant power relations (Carr & Kemmis 1986). To this end, it has an interest in the capacity of people to be self-reflective and generate knowledge that will enhance autonomy and responsibility, by transforming subtle, deeply-embedded belief structures that constrain human action (Herr & Anderson 2005; Held 1980). Critical action research provides opportunities for aged care staff to confront taken- for-granted understandings that support dominant power relations, with the view to transform their situation towards more just and equitable ends. The approach has a predominant concern with “actual not abstract practices” and “concrete problems in practice that arise from particular socio-cultural and material circumstances” (Kemmis & Wilkinson 1998, pp.24-25). Collaboration and reciprocity underpin engagement between the researcher and research participants in critical action research. Research is thus conducted “with and for people” (Meyer 1993, p. 1069) as opposed to on people. The development of critical understandings, that participants have a sense of ownership over can be an empowering process, provoking them to take responsibly for their “own emancipation” (Carr & Kemmis 1986, p.204). From this basis, change within a critical framework is conceptualised as having a higher degree of sustainability than that obtained through practical or technical means Gaventa & Cornwell, 2001; Grundy 1988; Holter & Schwartz-Barcott 1993), being individual and collective. For staff members involved in this project, a critical action

research approach provides opportunities to explore the social, political, cultural and material conditions by which their care practices, for people with dementia, are constructed.