What is action research?
Action research (AR) is a type of inquiry generally undertaken by practitioners who become researchers, or who work in partnership with university researchers, to examine issues and problems in their own settings; it is carried out through a cyclical process in which each cycle depends on the one before. The aim is to solve practical problems in a specific location and improve the situation. It is a useful approach to organisational or professional change and improvement; it has been increasingly applied to professional and organisational settings in education since the early 1990s and in nursing and other forms of healthcare in the late 90s. Community development is another area in which AR is often carried out. Researchers can use both qualitative and quantitative methods, but many see it as ‘the antithesis of experimental research’ (see Hart and Bond, 1995: 39) and hence as essentially qualitative. Indeed AR is not a ‘pure’ research approach but a particular style and development, and researchers can use many of the well-known methods and strategies. AR is not distinguished from other types of research by the use of different research procedures but it differs in some of its aims and processes (see later in this chapter); any of the conventional approaches may be carried out in its research phase. As the name implies, AR includes both research and action. It should fulfil a number of criteria, which will be discussed in this chapter. Other terms often used instead of AR are co-operative inquiry or collaborative research. Badger (2000) claims that AR stands within a continuum of definitions and philosophies; it is not a single unitary approach.
Reason and Bradbury (2006) speak of a variety or ‘a family’ of approaches in the introduction to their book; these derive from various philosophical and psychological assumptions and have their basis in different traditions. Usually, action researchers use qualitative methods, as this type of inquiry is a reaction against positivist approaches.
Although some agreement exists about the nature and features of AR, there are a number of definitions, some of which are quoted here. All involve the concepts of change, participation and action. In one of the definitions (Carr and Kemmis, 1986: 162) it is claimed that AR is ‘a form of self-reflective inquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which practices are carried out’. (Carr and Kemmis are educationists, and in the past AR has most often been used in education.)
Action research is more than mere production of knowledge about a problem, a topic or an area of study and involves situations where change is necessary or desirable, and researchers employ interventions to improve practice. Action researchers claim that AR differs from other research mainly because
- it has different aims, one of them being evaluation;
- researchers collaborate with practitioners, or are themselves participants in the setting to be studied;
- the process integrates action as an essential element;
- as well as research, it includes intervention and change in the situation under study;
- it is research in the setting where the changes take place;
- the findings can be of immediate benefit as solutions to problems can be implemented and assessed straight away.
Because of its complexity and time consumption, AR is more appropriate for small rather than large studies. Language use also differs from that of other approaches as it must be understood by all the participants and not be full of academic terminology or researcher jargon. Newman (2000) suggests that there is no ‘right’ way of carrying out AR, but that action researchers should modify their approach as they go through the process of planning, acting and evaluating.
Davies et al. (2008) developed an AR project in which a research partnership was established between members of local communities in Wales and a professional researcher. The intentions were to improve health and well-being of over-50s individuals. The aim of the research was to work for positive change concerning disadvantaged groups. Free exercise classes were set up in local communities. This was achieved through people deciding on their own agenda. Programmes were set up, evaluated and discussed over a period of time to improve through ‘feedback, reflection and adjustment’. (Although this study is not wholly qualitative, it incorporates the main features of AR)
As hospital mealtimes tend to be problematic in many institutions, Dickinson et al. (2005) carried out an AR study which focused on the needs of patients in a unit for elderly people rather than fulfilling the agenda of the hospital. The research aimed ultimately to improve mealtimes and help to make them patient-centred. The first phase consisted of observations and interviews with staff and patients about mealtimes. The data from the first stage were presented to the staff who, in the second phase, developed an action plan to improve the situation. Phase three consisted of the evaluation of the implementation of the plan. At all stages, practitioners and research facilitator worked together. Dickinson et al. noted the necessity to educate and train the research team in the appropriate skills.
The origins of action research
AR does not have a very long history but started in the 1940s. It is becoming popular and interdisciplinary, but in education it has been used often and for a long time. Lewin (1946), the social psychologist, was one of the early pioneers to develop AR although he used it differently from more recent action researchers. The concept of change, however, was already present in this type of research, and he wanted to employ AR to bring about change in behaviour. Lewin adopted a number of stages, which consisted of
- planning an initial step to change a setting or individuals’ behaviour;
- implementing the change;
- evaluating the results of the change;
- modifying the actions in the light of the evaluation;
- starting the process all over again.
Although modern action researchers still use the stage approach, much has changed; in particular AR has become more democratic and participatory. Action researchers now take account of the power relationships inherent in a setting.
The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations set up organisational AR from the late 1940s onwards – although at this stage the type of research was not called AR. The members of the Institute, in general psychologists, developed a problem-solving approach. At a later stage, this problem-solving approach was also used to help deprived communities to solve social and educational problems and ameliorate the ‘cycle of deprivation’. Since the work of the Tavistock Institute, AR has been carried out in many disciplines including management, sociology, healthcare and other disciplines. Often it is interdisciplinary and interprofessional.
Critical social theory
Many ideas of modern AR have their basis in critical social theory and critical social science. Carr and Kemmis (1986) give an overview of these, and some of their ideas are summarised here.
Critical theory is critical of positivist and complementary to interpretive research. Critical theorists of the 1950s, such as Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse and others, criticised the dominance of positivist social science in the twentieth century which conformed to rigid rules and stifled critical and creative thinking although they did agree with the scientific aim of generating rigorous knowledge about social life. While retrieving for social science those elements that are connected with values and human interests, they also tried to integrate these into a new framework that included ethical and critical thought. Like positivists however, they still considered rigorous knowledge about social life as a requirement of social science.
Habermas (1974) discusses human behaviour in terms of interests and needs. He argues that knowledge consists of three constitutive interests, which he calls the technical, the practical and the emancipatory. The technical interest helps people to gain knowledge in order to achieve technical control over nature. This instrumental knowledge requires scientific explanations. Habermas suggests that, although this form of knowledge is necessary, not everything can be reduced to scientific explanations, and people need to grasp the social meanings of life to understand others. Generating knowledge through interpretive methods can serve ‘practical’ interests, but this still does not suffice. Human beings need ‘emancipatory’ knowledge in order to achieve freedom and autonomy, overcome social problems and change power relationships. This will diminish alienation. Habermas’s (1972, 1974) thinking (developed in his books) is based in Marxist philosophy. (His theories cannot be developed here; this section merely gives a flavour of the thinking behind modern AR. Habermas also discusses the relationship between theory and practice.)
Educationists in the 1970s and 1980s developed ideas for AR, because they pressed for change in educational settings and society within a critical theory framework. The concept of ‘conscientization’ discussed by Freire (1970), the Marxist educationist, is also connected to critical social science. Freire believed that people become increasingly aware of the social and historical reality that influences their lives and are able to take action in order to change it. McTaggart and Kemmis (1982) developed guidelines in an AR planner. Although educational and community development studies are not directly connected to AR in nursing and healthcare, the underlying ideas are important as health researchers too desire the empowerment of patients who will be able to take control of their own lives and change their situation. AR has, however, lost much of the ideas of its Marxist antecedents, while valuing democracy and equality in action.
Action research in healthcare
As AR focused on improving education and society, it was also seen as useful in nursing and other healthcare arenas. In the words of Hart and Bond (1995:3), ‘it represents a counter to positivism and can develop reflexive practice and general theory from this practice’. It is, in their view, a tool for practitioners, as knowledge is vital for improving healthcare practice; only those involved in the setting are fully able to apply this knowledge. AR generates practical knowledge intended to assist in raising standards of care and delivery of service in general. It is not ‘blue skies research’. Health workers now use it frequently but do not always go back to its base and develop it merely on a practical level rather than taking into account its added importance in developing theory.
One of the aims of AR is bridging the theory-practice gap as this gap has been seen as detrimental to professional and clinical work. Rolfe (1996) argues that engaging practitioners from the clinical setting to carry out research in their own practice area would help to overcome this gap and generate direct improvement in practice and generate nursing knowledge. This, after all, is one of the justifications for doing health research. In the health professions, AR is also a useful way of attempting and evaluating change in order to improve settings and care in the clinical arena. Professionals are able, through AR, to undertake research into their own practices. Earlier deeply held assumptions might be questioned. This is linked to the reasons McNiff (1988) gives for engaging in AR, and these can be applied to nursing and health research. She suggests that the aims are political, professional and personal. Through AR, health professionals are able to make sense of the clinical situation and become aware of the impact of policies and practices imposed on them through the system. They will also recognise more clearly that the health services and guidelines for care and treatment should exist initially for the good of the patients and ultimately for the health of society.
As professionals, health researchers make independent decisions while adopting procedures based on theory and research rather than being controlled by outside forces. AR helps professionals to make decisions in the interest of their clients (Carr and Kemmis, 1986). Rather than accepting unsatisfactory decisions imposed on them, they observe and diagnose problems as well as plan and implement changes that are based on the knowledge gained through the research. In AR, professionals need to adopt a thinking and self-critical stance towards their practice which enables them to justify what they do.
On a personal level, AR not only improves the situation for clients and patients, but also enlightens the practitioners themselves and enhances their lives through reflection and engagement in the situation. The clinical setting provides the opportunity for active involvement and personal satisfaction and hence for personal growth.
The main features of action research
Action research is more than just the generation or production of knowledge about an area of interest in which change is seen as necessary or desirable
to improve practice. Researchers carry out interventions in the setting to be investigated. The main features of good AR include the following:
- AR draws data and information from a range of sources.
- AR is cyclical and dynamic.
- AR is collaborative and participatory.
- The aim of AR is to devise solutions to practical problems and to develop theory.
- Researchers and practitioners are critical, self-critical and reflective.
AR draws data from a range of sources and perspectives: for instance, data sources might be interviews and observation, documents or diaries. AR is cyclical in the sense that it represents an action cycle consisting of planning, implementing action, observing and reflecting. Then the process starts again. Lewin (1946) already demanded these four stages which he developed into a ‘spiral’. The difference between his and modern AR is that present-day research is not imposed from outside the organisation or setting but planned and carried out by insiders, namely participants in the setting.
Lewin’s (1946) stages still form the basis for AR, and Parahoo (2006) describes the use of this process in nursing where the stages are similar, though the aims and character of AR are different in some ways in clinical and educational nursing from those of earlier AR:
- Researchers identify a problem in practice.
- They carry out research to assess the problem.
- They plan and implement the change.
- They evaluate the outcome.
- After this, the cycle starts again.
These stages will be developed further in the section on practical considerations Waterman et al. (2001) demonstrated the cyclical process and the research partnership as ‘fundamental’ for AR.
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
