emancipatory design choices for action research practitioners

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 13: 486–495 (2003)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/casp.753

Emancipatory Design Choices for Action ResearchPractitioners

GERRY ROBERTS1* and BOB DICK2

1Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 519, Longreach, Queensland, Australia2Southern Cross Institute of Action Research, Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia

ABSTRACT

The process choices made in action research can determine how emancipatory an experience it is for

participants. Some choices promote an experience of emancipation. Other choices can reduce it.

There can be tensions between choices that encourage emancipation and those that pursue other

advantages at the expense of emancipation. Here we consider six such tensions.

For each choice we suggest how to frame the tension to deliver an experience of emancipation.

The suggestions involve practitioners and participants choosing the driving force for the work,

acquiring and applying skills for empowerment, mixing action and research to suit the context,

choosing an appropriate simplicity of methodology, planning participation, and engaging with the

different beliefs of practitioners and participants. We use practitioner and researcher interchange-

ably. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: action research; privileging participants; participation; practitioner choices;

emancipation; resolving tensions; empowerment

INTRODUCTION

In our usage action research is an intervention methodology using action and research to

increase understanding of the research situation and at the same time to pursue change.

Change and understanding—action and critical reflection—alternate within a cyclic pro-

cess. The understanding and change enrich each other.

Practitioners and participants can make choices about the way action research is used.

The choices can determine whether or not the action research process is experienced as

emancipatory. In general it is argued that emancipation will be increased when the parti-

cipants are most involved in decisions and when their content and process knowledge is

most privileged and utilized. This may sometimes be at the cost of sacrificing other

options.

* Correspondence to: Gerry Roberts, Innovation and Development Specialist, Department of Primary Industries,PO Box 519, Longreach, Queensland, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 3 September 2003

Where a choice exists between emancipation and other options there is a potential for

generating tension. Here six such tensions are addressed. They are:

* whether the process is data or theory driven;

* the level of skill of practitioners in using emancipatory processes;

* action emphasis versus a research emphasis;

* the level of sophistication of the methodology in use;

* the style and extent of participation;

* differing epistemic beliefs especially between participants and practitioners

These tensions do not define dichotomies. Rather they are situations that can occur in

action researching where the decisions made can influence the level of emancipation

achieved. Choices can often be made which both expand participant emancipation and

at the same time achieve other advantages appropriate to the research context. At other

times the emancipatory choice may be made, but disadvantages of that choice may be

minimized in some way. Skilful practitioners, with emancipation as their goal, can use

the resolution of these tensions to deliver Dewey’s belief—that for democracy it is essen-

tial that ordinary citizens join with professionals in programmes of enquiry and reform

(McTaggart, 1991).

We wish to make two points before proceeding. First, our emphasis here is on the crea-

tion of an emancipatory experience within the research process. Second, we are not

arguing necessarily for highly participatory or emancipatory research. There are times

when less participatory research may be justified (Clark, 1972). On occasions practitioners

and participants may choose approaches other than those that have been described. Our

intention here is to describe some important tensions which influence the potential for

emancipation within the research experience when that is the choice of participants and

practitioner.

DATA-DRIVEN OR THEORY-DRIVEN

The tension

Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). In his more recent discus-

sions of it Glaser (e.g. 1992) distinguishes ‘emergent’ research, as he calls it, from

‘hypothesis-testing’ research. The latter accepts the existing body of knowledge as the

foundation for the current research. The assumptions about what is being researched

are expected to be consistent with that knowledge. In emergent research, researchers

try to put aside their presumptions to engage with the research situation as it is.

Of course, both forms of research test hypotheses. ‘Hypothesis-testing’ is therefore a

misleading label. The two approaches differ not in the existence of hypotheses, but in

the source of their hypotheses. In one form the hypotheses are grounded in the data or

derived from the data through the interpretation of participants. (In his 2002 critique of

the more constructivist views of Charmaz’s 2000 paper, Glaser supports this.) In the other

the hypotheses are taken or derived from existing theory. Therefore our earlier practice

(Dick, 2002) will be followed by referring respectively to data-driven research and

theory-driven research.

These approaches have different implications for emancipation. In theory-driven

research the existing theory is treated as a given which limits the hypotheses which can

Choices in action research for emancipation 487

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 13: 486–495 (2003)

be developed. As the bearer of theory the researcher is usually placed (at least initially) in

a privileged position relative to the participants in content knowledge and methodological

expertise. It is easier in data-driven research to be open to the particular context of the

situation and the views of the participants. This can be at the cost of abandoning the under-

standing which the literature might provide.

Resolving or reducing the tension

Glaser’s recommendation is to take existing theory into account. However, he does this

only after a theory has emerged from the data. It is then refined by the practitioner treating

the literature as data (e.g. Glaser, 1998). This partly answers the problem but at the cost of

again privileging the practitioners.

However, it is possible to engage the participants in interpretation of the data. This

restores their ownership of the interpretation, compensating for the more extensive knowl-

edge of literature which the practitioners usually bring to the situation.

Some forms of theory are more accessible to participants. The ‘theory of action’

approach of Argyris and Schon (1974) has much to offer. Such a theory has three main

components: situation, actions and resultant outcomes. Participants can derive such a the-

ory from their experience. It also translates more easily into action. It can be further

refined in successive action research cycles as participants carry through their growing

understanding into action.

In partial summary, emergent research methods can engage participants in interpreting

their data. This can reduce the influence of prior theory and thus of the practitioners who

are familiar with it.

An application

For reasons addressed earlier, in our own practice we usually seek to work with a data-

driven approach. For instance, for diagnostic interviews we often use an open ended

approach to interviewing (Dick, 1990a). We deliberately reduce our questioning of infor-

mants to avoid shaping their responses. We then involve them in interpreting the informa-

tion which they and others have provided.

PRACTITIONER SKILL IN EMANCIPATORY PRACTICES

The tension

Practitioners who wish to use emancipatory processes may find themselves limited by

their skill in the more participatory forms of action research. Practitioners less skilled

in emancipatory practices may be less well placed to support a group in choosing its

own path.

Over time, practitioners accumulate experience, for example about participant aspira-

tions in a particular situation or environment. A similar environment may trigger similar

expectations on the part of the practitioner. Participants may not meet those expectations

or may not agree amongst themselves. Practitioners may then experience a tension

between the aim of creating an emancipatory experience for participants and the wish

to follow the dictates of previous experience or the need to pursue certain outcomes such

as an acceptable written report or thesis.

488 G. Roberts and B. Dick


For Lincoln and Guba (2000) emancipation is fostered when control of the research

study and the ensuing action are shared with or surrendered to the participants. Kemmis

and McTaggart (2000) refer to it as a perspective in which people construct their own

research of their own social situation. As Goff, Gregg, and May (2001) say, participation

in action research transforms the power relationships and enables change to occur.

This requires an action research practitioner to understand and be able to work in col-

laborative ways with those in the situation. Some practitioners may be poorly equipped to

do this.


The usual resolution is to leave decisions on content to participants. However this still

privileges researchers who facilitate the process. Although the initial step may be difficult,

to reduce this tension practitioners may begin where participants are at as researchers.

They may then increasingly engage participants in control of content, process and meta-

process. (The role of metaprocess is referred to later.)

Any loss of emancipatory effect from such a tension is further reduced where partici-

pants are prepared for and supported to accept and use their role as process decision-

makers.

Action research is well suited to collaborative decision-making. The continuing cycles

of action and critical reflection form a process all participants and practitioners can learn

to use. It requires only that they understand and make use of the cyclic process.

An application

One of us sought to create opportunities for emancipation of participants through action

research when introducing experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) to pastoralist farmers. When

action was not taken by the pastoralists he examined his role as facilitator.

Through critical reflection he realized he directed participants to certain content out-

comes, manufacturing a situation to support this. Reflection showed the behaviour was

founded on a personal concern that participants and external observers would not see

the project as successful unless his version of practical action was in evidence (Roberts,

1997). Changing his behaviour to have participants decide on actions relevant to them, led

to participants identifying significant areas for action.

ACTION EMPHASIS VERSUS RESEARCH EMPHASIS

The tension

The immediacy of an initial action oriented approach to action research can be experi-

enced as more emancipatory. Increasing understanding of a situation through an initially

research oriented approach may be seen as increasing rigour through increasing under-

standing on which action for change can be based. Tension may be experienced where this

is seen as an either/or choice.

The possibility for tension arises when the complementary roles of action and research

are not recognized. Action provides for change and research delivers understanding. We

have argued elsewhere (Dick, 2002) that the two fit well together. The better understand-

ing gained through research allows more effective action. In taking action one develops a

better understanding of the research situation.




Resolution of the tension appears to be most readily achieved where the balance between

action and research is relevant to the context. For example a level of crisis in the system

may prompt participants to think first of action. It then seems prudent to begin there.

Where there is little understanding of what productive action can be taken, research

may initially be more appropriate.

In action research the starting emphasis does not decide the continuing emphasis. The

flexible process is adjusted continuously to suit the situation.

This flexibility allows the beginning to be imprecise, if necessary. Action research can

be described (Dick, 2003) as a cyclic progression from fuzzy questions through fuzzy

methods to fuzzy answers, proceeding to less fuzzy questions, methods and answers.

The reflection allows the process to be adjusted to incorporate what has been learned in

the previous cycle.

Eizenberg (1990) identifies a further source of flexibility—the use of smaller cycles of

action research within any larger cycle.

In partial summary, action can offer emancipation by engaging participants in their cho-

sen actions. Critical reflection before and after each action can then refine the future direc-

tion. Research can offer participants more rigorous data from which to understand the

system. Combining both is in keeping with the emergent nature of action research.

An application

An example is provided by a project one of us conducted under the guidance of a com-

munity steering group (Roberts, 1998).

Initially the steering group participants were unclear about how to proceed. They chose

to carry out a preliminary survey of selected strata of residents. The purpose was to gen-

erate a list of items and features (data) that those in each strata believed contributed to the

character of the community.

Interpretation of the research data by steering group participants provided increased

understanding of the system of character in the community. It enabled the steering group

to choose the next step in the project through refining their process based on their under-

standing of the content of their research.

SIMPLE VERSUS SOPHISTICATED METHODOLOGY

The tension

It has been mentioned earlier in the first of the six ‘tensions’ that researchers are usually

more methodologically knowledgeable than participants. Where researcher knowledge is

privileged it reduces emancipation of participants. Here we contrast the relative effects of

simple and complex methodologies on participant involvement with the understanding

that increased participant involvement usually increases emancipatory outcomes has been

studied.

It is assumed that in most settings the researchers take initial responsibility for metho-

dology. If the researchers adopt a relatively simple methodology then a number of benefits

follow:

* the participants are less overwhelmed by the methodology and thus more willing to

share responsibility with the researchers;



* the transfer of responsibility from researchers to participants can occur more easily and

quickly.

(This may be at the cost of sacrificing the deeper understanding that more complex meth-

odologies may sometimes yield.)

Compared to many other methodologies action research is a more natural research

approach for most participants. The action research cycle at its simplest can be described

as planning, action and critical reflection (cf. Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). To some

extent participants are accustomed to planning before action, and later reviewing their suc-

cess. Their planning and reflection may not be frequent or thorough. Action research is

nevertheless an extension to their usual practice rather than a very different approach.

In other words, the adoption of a simple action research cycle as the initial methodology

is potentially more emancipatory than something more complex.


The use of a dual action research cycle provides a partial remedy. The initial research can

adopt simple plan—act—reflect cycles. One cycle is applied to the content of the

research: participants plan what they are going to do, do it, and then review it. The other

cycle is applied to the methodology itself. The methodology may be simple to begin with.

It becomes more elaborate as participants come to understand it better and adjust it to fit

the research situation. Both cycles can be facilitated by the researchers until the partici-

pants are able to take on that responsibility.

In effect, action research is being used initially as both methodology and meta-metho-

dology. Initially facilitated by the researchers it supports the participants in taking on

responsibility for the methodology.

It may be objected that in providing the facilitation the researchers are still privileged.

To some extent we agree. However, our experience as skilled facilitators over many years

has been that most participants prefer the methodology to be facilitated by the researchers

at first. Further, they do not seem to experience this as disempowering provided three con-

ditions are met:

* the provision and interpretation of data is left to them;

* the researchers explain the processes used and the purpose behind them;

* and it is evident that the researchers are keen for the participants to assume

responsibility for the methodology as soon as they wish to do so.

In partial summary, simple methodologies potentially are more easily learned and used by

participants, leading to a greater sense of emancipation. The simplicity is gained by leav-

ing out detail. Here the strategy is to start simply, to facilitate a dual action research cycle

which addresses both research content and research process as transparently as possible.

As the research progresses, appropriate complexity can be introduced.

An application

An example is provided by the classroom work which one of us was involved in over many

years—university classes based on action research principles. After initial goal setting

and relationship building the course was participatively designed. Class members first

decided the course content. They then designed the learning processes to be used and

negotiated who would implement content and process.



An evaluation cycle was then negotiated to monitor and refine what has been agreed.

Brief weekly reviews and less frequent but more extensive reviews evaluated progress.

The earlier design decisions were revisited and revised. Even relatively simple designs

improved, and continued to improve over time.

THE STYLE AND EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION

The tension

Participation is the major vehicle through which emancipation is usually sought. It can

vary substantially in terms of who is involved and how they are involved. There can be

a tension between providing high involvement and keeping the process manageable.

Much of the action research literature holds out emancipation as the goal of all good

action research (e.g. Grundy, 1982; Kemmis, 2001). In the recent handbook of action

research (Reason & Bradbury, 2001) all or almost all of the papers talk as if participation

is obligatory.

Sometimes this can be achieved with comparative ease. All the stakeholders are iden-

tified. They are involved fully in all aspects of the research process as co-researchers. In

other settings this is less easily done. Participants may not want involvement beyond the

actual content of the research. More importantly, sometimes there are many stakeholders.

Involvement then requires careful thought and deliberate processes.

Differences in rank introduce further complications. If intact small groups can be iden-

tified it may be possible to work with them on issues which are their concern only. Full

participation may then be achievable. The cost is that there may be few issues where they

are the only stakeholders.


The resolution offered is as follows (Dick, 1990b). A coordinating committee of represen-

tatives is set up. Their responsibilities are limited. They are to identify specific issues and

the relevant stakeholders. They are then to set up, resource and co-ordinate single-issue

working parties of relevant stakeholders. Co-ordination is achieved by having a member

of the steering committee on each working party, but not as chair. In effect this creates a

communication hierarchy that is not a power hierarchy.

It has been found that clear expectations are important. To this end we contract carefully

to establish our role and that of the participants. We have also found that unless we give

special attention to the aspect of rank, especially in corporate settings, then the exercise of

rank within the groups can undo the benefits we are trying to achieve.

In partial summary, then, we are seeking here to achieve an emancipatory process in

situations where there are many stakeholders. To do so we involve stakeholders in highly

participative working groups co-ordinated by a committee which has no power to control

them.

An application

This approach has been used in both community and organizational settings. Preceded by

a search process (Emery & Devane, 1999) to identify local issues, it has secured wide

involvement in community renewal from citizens. In corporate settings it has been able



to tap the enthusiasm of organization members by allowing them to work on issues which

they are keen to resolve.

TENSION CAUSED BY THE DIFFERENT BELIEFS OF RESEARCHERS

AND PARTICIPANTS

The tension

Differences in belief can arise from different assumptions about what can be known. Epis-

temic assumptions (values) about reality determine individual behaviour in responses to

situations.

Different epistemic assumptions can lead to tension between participants and action

research practitioners. As well, each may be unaware of their own assumptions as the

cause of the difference: Argyris, Putnam, and Smith (1985) argue that most people are

not aware of the assumptions underpinning their behaviour.

Differences in expectations may arise in relation to many different issues. Important

issues are:

* the amount of structure that is useful and relevant;

* the role of the action research practitioner as expert;

* the application of managerial prerogative in joint management and staff decision-

making.


Interweaving four activities can enable this tension to be managed towards resolution.

First, practitioners can clarify their own epistemic position on action research and their

facilitation of it. This is a reflective activity in the reflexive vein promoted by Bawden

(1995). It is not common practice; Newby (1997) records this for researchers in sociolo-

gical research settings.

Second, the contracting phase of the project provides an important beginning. Here the

practitioner can introduce the concept of action research as a spiral of action and critical

reflection. In emancipatory action research the introduction can be in the form Kemmis

(1996) proposes for critical reasoning for social change where, ‘ . . . one treats the others

involved in the setting as co-participants . . . ’ In organizational settings a steering group

that includes management, staff and consultant can oversee the action research process

initially. Their continuing action and critical reflection about the process of the project

can demonstrate equality, empowerment and transparency.

Third, and following from the second, is the progressive shift from a greater attention to

process by the practitioner, to increased attention to process by all as co-participants. The

outcome occurring at any time is always a focus for critical reflection by co-participants.

Fourth, participants with different epistemic belief positions can be encouraged to take

their role as co-participants in action research. An example may be someone expecting the

practitioner to act as expert. Ellis and Kruglanski (1992) suggest some people ascribe a

high epistemic authority to themselves. They believe that their own learning outcomes are

worthwhile in the situation. Others have a high perceived ‘authority-gap’. They underva-

lue their own knowledge and defer to ‘expert’ opinion.



Each of these four activities can be the subject of smaller cycles of action research that

contribute to the rigour and outcomes of the overall action research cycles.

An application

An exercise of managerial prerogative provides an example. There was a difference in

epistemic belief about implementing the intent of planned structural change. Staff enthu-

siastic to participate with managers took part in the development of a plan for the restruc-

ture. Management announced it would be implemented.

Staff were satisfied with their input in to the restructure plan. They were dissatisfied

when management gave the position to one of their own without a selection process

and without others being able to apply. Staff did not believe that the intent of the decision

was met.

One of us was the consultant facilitating the activity. Told by staff of the suspected style

of implementation, he approached management. They replied that it was a management

decision for financial reasons. The tension emerged only in the implementation stage

where it undermined the emancipating nature of the change.

CONCLUSION

Six choices in the design of participatory action research have been identified, each of

which can be a source of tension. For each it has been shown that resolution of the tension

is possible, often by choosing a third option which combines many of the advantages of

the other two. The cyclic oscillation between action (‘act and observe’) and critical reflec-

tion (‘reflect and plan’) often plays a part in the resolution.

Empowerment may be better achieved if researchers and participants give attention to

all six of the tensions.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. SanFrancisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Bawden, R. J. (1995). Systemic development: A learning approach to change, Occasional Paper #1.

Sydney: Centre for Systemic Development, University of Western Sydney.Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin, &

Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed. pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Clark, P. A. (1972). Action research and organisational change. London: Harper and Row.Dick, B. (2003). Session 1: applications, Action research and evaluation on-line. Retrieved March

2003 from http : ==www:scu:edu:au=schools=gcm=ar=areol=areol-session05:htmlDick, B. (2002). Postgraduate programs using action research. The Learning Organization, 9(3),

159–170.Dick, B. (1990a). Convergent interviewing, version 3. Brisbane: Interchange.Dick, B. (1990b). Processes for community consultation: A resource document prepared for the useof facilitators and members of local area consultative committees associated with the communityconsultation project for road planning in Queensland. Brisbane: Department of Transport.

Ellis, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1992). Self as an epistemic authority: Effects on experiential andinstructional learning. Social Cognition, 10(4), 357–375.



Eizenberg, N. (1990). Action research in medical education: Improving teaching via investigatinglearning. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), Action research for change and development. Brisbane:Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT), Griffith University.

Emery, M., & Devane, T. (1999). Search conference. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? [47 paragraphs]. Forum qualitativeSozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative social research [On-line Journal], 3(3). Retrived April 18,2003, from http : ==www:qualitative-research:net=fqs=fqs-eng:htm

Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: SociologyPress.

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence versus forcing. Mill Valley,CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Goff, S., Gregg, J., & May, K. (2001). Participatory action research: Change management in the ‘nogo’ zone. In S. Sankaran, B. Dick, R. Passfield, & P. Swepson (Eds.), Effective changemanagement using action learning and action research. Lismore: Southern Cross UniversityPress.

Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(3), 23–24.Kemmis, S. (2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory

action research in the footsteps of Jurgen Habermas. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.),Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 91–102). London: Sage.

Kemmis, S. (1996). Emancipatory aspirations in a postmodern era. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), Newdirections in action research. London: Falmer Press.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed). New Delhi: Sage.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Melbourne:Deakin University.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emergingconfluences. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).New Delhi: Sage.

McTaggart, R. (1991). Action research—a short modern history. Geelong: Deakin University.Newby, M. J. (1997). Educational action research: The death of meaning? or, the practitioner’s

response to utopian discourse. Educational Research, 39(1), 77–86.Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry andpractice. London: Sage.

Roberts, G. M. O. (1998). Report to the community on the cultural mapping of the LongreachShire—what gives us our character. Longreach: GR Consulting.

Roberts, G. M. O. (1997). Action researching my practice as a facilitator of experiential learningwith pastoralist farmers in central west Queensland. Ph. D. Thesis. Retrived March 2003, fromhttp : ==www:scu:edu:au=schools=gcm=ar=art=t-groberts00:html



emancipatory design choices for action research practitioners

Documents