Home ›

After our fifth session

Posted 4 years ago, 13 comments

Thank you for the engaging discussion on Thursday about validity and reliability. We'll be returning to these issues again in the context of participatory approaches.

We're now turning to action research traditions - and our upcoming session on Monday at 5:30pm is focused on developing an understanding of what action research is and how it's different from the approaches/examples we've already discussed.

Please post your questions/comments/reactions to the readings by 3pm on Monday.

The readings are available on the Schedule page.

Submitted by anjchang on February 23, 2009 - 4:30pm.

I really enjoyed all the articles, as they raise my awareness of issues and value systems inherent in action research and participatory action research. I found the article about how traditional research is easier to graduate with interesting, and eye-opening for me to understand these tradeoffs. The notes about quantifying research and academic rigor as applied to PAR were helpful in my understanding that as long as there is observable change as a result of action and reflexive thought, then the research is successful. I also think that while traditional research emphasizes repeatability, for social sciences, it might not be practical because people have unique problems, and every situation is different. Perhaps what might be an interesting take is to outline the value systems inherent in the system so that the people involved can talk about and understand their actions better. As I understand it, PAR emphasizes interaction between people to examine their situations. By empowering people with tools for reflection and thought, you can't help but bring about participatory change.

The PAR readings are very interesting and helpful. I think reflection is a key part of what we should all be doing as researchers. Its the morality that ties into "beneficial for worldkind" and "world peace" that is missed in many curriculums. That's one reason for loving the media lab. ;) Generally speaking, these readings reminds me of activity theory, which is about understanding the contexts in which activities take place. I think that the readings demonstrated good reflections from practitioners about issues and reasons for action research.

Submitted by wakeupsilver on February 23, 2009 - 3:08pm.

When Moore writes I believe her. She's speaking to me.

To answer Eric, I don't think Media Labbers in general have much of a concept of what subjects are. That's because we're technocentric, though "social good" comes in at a strong second. But there are sure to be a couple more examples. Anyone?

I really get excited when people have an answer to "what's the problem" other than what the problem is. It's a trick answer that says the power relationship between researcher and researched is, itself, the problem. To say more about this in my own words, I'd say that the set of possible discoveries that can be made are limited by the process involved in conducting the research. By engaging in nonparticipatory research, there are simply some conclusions, good and useful and would-be celebrated by everyone, that can't be reached. I'd say some of these outcomes are some of the more empowering outcomes that we need to be seeing. The tricky part is that there is a humanity in it all so that even without a typical research outcome, there is still the outcome that says people can take action together without being treated a subjects. That is an actual outcome of an experiment even if there are no other results. And a powerful outcome.

I'm reminded of Eleanor Duckworth's "critical explorations"

Submitted by eric on February 23, 2009 - 2:45pm.

I'm digging the Moore article.

Question: Which Media Lab projects have been anything like PAR (if any)?

Submitted by wakeupsilver on February 23, 2009 - 2:48pm.

Contestational Design? (Tad Hirsch)

Submitted by lightnin on February 23, 2009 - 1:59pm.

Moore - Basement of the Ivory Tower

- Moore's point about alternative methodologies for research like PAR being taught only after exhaustive training in traditional methods is a good one. As she puts it, "This results in the naming of the other -- the alternative -- and creates a dichotomy instead of a parallel approach." p.147. I think this applies not only to PAR but to some degree to the dichotomy between quant / qual research designs in general. Qualitative research is 'the other,' and therefore must be defined in the terms of quantitative understanding.

- Table 1, under goals - 'Democritisation of knowledge creation' ... Shades of Wikipedia.

- I'm very interested in the notion that this kind of research can have a transformative effect on both researchers and subjects (hmm.. the distinction between researchers and subjects is probably not useful to describe participants in this approach... perhaps I should say everyone involved?) But it's hard for me to grasp what the author means without a context or a narrative: What transformation, when?

Submitted by Stephanie on February 23, 2009 - 1:53pm.

Moore, Living in the basement of the ivory tower

pg. 153 "If doing PAR is antithetical to climbing the ladder of professional success then why are professors teaching students (some who may want to become professors) about the benefits of this alternative methodology?"

Because those professors want to hang on to their jobs?

On a less cynical note, why assume current conditions won't change in academia? Why not be the agent of change? Why can't she do a PAR project on attempting to do PAR within her institute?

Submitted by sajid on February 23, 2009 - 12:08am.

Moore, Living in the basement of the ivory tower:

  • The definition on page 2 seems to require universal participation. How does one get that?
  • In action research inherently non-repeatable? How does one ensure reliability and validity under the defintions on page 3?
  • Does action research needs researchers in the traditional sense?
  • How do you avoid cat-herding in action research? What happens with too many leaders? Why should anyone listen to the so-called researcher (or consultant, or...)?
  • Isn't reflexivity inherently central to all internally valid and reliable qualitative result?
  • Can someone "go native" in action research? Actually... can anyone avoid it?
  • What is the sanity check criteria for action? Can initial action not critically unbalance all future iterations (problem of reliability/reproducability from last time)?
  • How does action research avoid the "everyone must know and care about everything" problem? Where's the line? Who drew it? The person with the chalk seems to have some incredible redistricting-type powers that seem contrary to the action research ethos...
  • Every group of peers is somewhere in a power structure in the world as it stands. How does one overcome that in action research?
  • In addition to the final questions, I ask: What is an academic vis-a-vis PAR? What is the criterial for evaluating action research? How can one do action research without objectivity (ie, fulfill goal of "doing good"... good to whom/where/what?)? Why don't they teach what "begging the question" means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)?
Submitted by sajid on February 22, 2009 - 11:46pm.

Stringer, Principles of community-based action research:

  • How is look/act/think different from all of design?
  • I love the quote on page 18 (3). Just for the record...
  • How can one overcome the fact that the action researcher has by default the ability to change things? How can the ability to change be democratized without leading to anarchy?
  • How can you "ensure well-being" (logically speaking, that is... the road to hell is paved with good intentions)?
  • The diatribe against central control seems to overlook the extention of the obvious: no person (or community) is an island. Who coordinates and resources the ultrafeudalism?
  • How is it possible to get conceptual parity? Or is conceptual parity the effect of the action itself?
  • (Can't help myself...) Consultant: http://www.nikkanen.org/dilbert/Insult.jpg
  • What's the tradeoff between efficiency of effect (ie, done in my lifetime) vs. rejection of heirarchy?
  • How does one get participation when the culture is a hybrid of paricipatory and heirarchical?
Submitted by sajid on February 22, 2009 - 11:18pm.

McNiff, How is action research similar or different to other research:

  • Hmm... "make things better". Does that mean that theoretical people don't judge, evaluative people judge objectively, and action researchers judge normatively?
  • Who decides worthwhile? Better?
  • Whis is the particular importance of "made public" vis-a-vis action research?
  • If you do not have answers, how do you know your purpose of making things better is being served?
Submitted by sajid on February 22, 2009 - 11:09pm.

The Many Faces of Action Research:

  • Why are there so many names for action research? Are these names the side effect of parallel inception or splintering of factions?
  • Action = ? Intervention?
  • Is the field of action research fragmented by country?
  • If action = intervention, then how can anything possibly done without collaboration of those involved? Is collaboration meant in the "co-researcher" sense? Or in the "co-participant" or simply "participant" sense?
  • What's the value judgement of a "democratic result"?
  • Dissertation discourages collaboration? Maybe I am just running into a mental block, but why?
  • Does positionality logically incur collaborativeness?
  • Is action research design itself in some purist sense? How important is it that the feedback loop be completed by one entity (researcher, group, whatever)?
Submitted by micah on February 22, 2009 - 9:28pm.

It is interesting how with action researcher the researcher has an intention to bring about the situation that was congruent with their value position. It seems like a form of intervention via a research methodology.
---

As McNiff states, "action researchers are intent on describing, interpreting and explaining events while that they seek to change for the better," I wonder how better is decided a priori?

---

I found the following statement in Moore's paper interesting, a few of the potential drawbacks of PAR (action research) methodology is that some participants my find the experience very upsetting. Since the goal of action research is to gain knowledge and create change it seems that the researcher should carefully consider how that change may affect the participants.

Submitted by Stephanie on February 22, 2009 - 4:29pm.

Principles of community-based action research
Stringer, 1996 - Action research - A handbook for practitioners

Community-Based action research has lofty goals: research that is "noncompetitive and nonexploitative and enhances the lives of all those who participate."
It makes me wonder how possible it is to meet some of the goals included in this research, particularly "political parity of those involved" and inclusion of
"all groups affected." The political parity strikes me because it seems that in advancing some community-based goals it would be difficult to achieve parity,
especially with respect to outcomes. And inclusion is a wonderful goal, but is it always possible to get people in all affected groups to participate?
What is a researcher to do if she's unable to involve a segment of a population: make a note of it in the research, give up, or something else?

Submitted by Stephanie on February 22, 2009 - 4:05pm.

How is action research similar or different to other research ?
McNiff, Lomax, and Whitehead, 1996

The paragraph on why research should be made public gave me pause. Is publication guaranteed?
And it seems, especially, in action research where changes are being made on a community level that
perhaps something less than transparency is optimal, in the interests of preserving anonymity. After all,
if you're writing about "fixing" a broken system, you might not want to/be able to reveal all the details (people involved,etc).