In this episode we explore some of the methodological and philosophical underpinnings and applications of Action Research and the Theory of Change. 

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Hello everyone, and welcome back to another episode of our SOSC 730 Lecture podcast.  I hope you all had a wonderful weekend filled with sunshine! Today, we're diving deep into Unit 7 where we explore Action Research and the Theory of Change. And let me just say, I am super excited to hear your thoughts and get a sense of how your project designs continue to emerge. I'm also eagerly awaiting Unit 10, where you all will get to present your projects.

Unit 7 is always enjoyable for me. I've spent a lot of time thinking about and writing about the methodological and philosophical underpinnings of action research, particularly Participatpry Action research or PAR.

But before we jump in, let's clarify what action research actually is.

Greenwood and Levin tell us that Action Research is a set of self-consciously collaborative and democratic strategies for generating knowledge and designing action. The idea is to bring together experts and local stakeholders to collaborate in the generation of knowledge.

Reason and Bradbury provide a more comprehensive definition that emphasizes the values and intentions of action researchers, focusing on democracy, participation, and the quest for practical solutions.

Now, Coleman's chapter goes a bit further.

Coleman explains how adaptable and versatile Action Research can be. If you're pondering over whether to use Action Research for your project, the tables 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5 in that chapter will be your best friend.

But what about the Theory of Change? Is it a friend or a foe to Action Research?

Theory of Change is another methodology concerned with effecting change. Clark's chapter gives some excellent examples of model change as causal links that can be predicted and observed in the most efficient manner.  But this approach poses a tension with Action Research. While Action Research is more adaptable and versatile, Theory of Change is more deterministic. It brings some structure to research but also poses challenges to the emergent and complex nature of Action Research.

This reminds me of writing fiction; I've written two novels and enjoy it! Before beginning, I found it extremely helpful to map out the entire book—plot and character arcs—from beginning to end. This was extremely beneficial to me. But, once I was immersed in the story, the characters and plot took turns I could never have predicted when I first mapped out the story. So do you strictly adhere to the outline or do you let the story emerge as it "wants" to be told?

Now, let's delve into a brief history of Action Research as a methodology.

Kurt Lewin is the man who popularized the term "Action Research." His focus was on making real-world differences through social science. His works inspired the British school of action research as well, which is largely associated with the Tavistock Institute. Now, that institute has some wild conspiracy theories surrounding it, but we'll save that topic for another day.

Lewin was a Jewish refugee from the Nazi Holocaust. This experience inspired him to develop a practical approach for social sciences to make a difference in the real world. As a result of this drive, he spent his career investigating how social science research can support changes in attitudes, foster democratic leadership, improve our ability to lead change in organizations and communities, and rethink behaviour change as a result of both people and the environment.

Lewin was influenced by the emerging symbolic interactionists as well as the epistemologies of George Herbert Mead and later Hurbert Blumer. We can't seem to shake these guys! We can trace Lewin's action research concept, in particular, through the symbolic interactionist approach: in order to truly understand the meaning of social actions, we must first understand what social symbols people consider to be important. And the best way to grasp the nuances of these social symbols is to try to see them through the eyes of the research participants through social interaction.

In his 1946 paper, Action Research and Minority Problems, Lewin developed the concept of social interaction. He defined action research in that paper as an iterative process that is comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action. He proposed a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action. This is known as the Lewinian spiral. You can find variations of this simple diagram with a Google search.

Surprisingly, a British school of action research emerged alongside the American action research tradition. This school of AR was founded on the work of British social psychologists, some of whom were heavily influenced by Lewin's call for social action. Much of this British AR tradition is housed at the Tavistock Institute. Google the Tavistock Institute and conspiracy theories for some light, mind-bending entertainment. Back to the serious stuff: Tavistock has done some fantastic AR-related work over the years, particularly in the areas of organizational development and leadership.

I also have no doubt that the Tavistock Institute was involved in military-related research during the Cold War—and probably continues to this day. Many elements of emerging cutting-edge social science research were used by the US Military's Project Camelot to study and influence revolution. The rise of PAR in the late 1960s and 1970s was in fact a direct response to the increasingly blurred ethical lines of the engagement of social science research traditions in support of the state. Much of the state's "meddling" in research contributed to the "epistemological revolution" of the 1960s and early 1970s.

One of these key "social science revolutionaries" was American anthropologist Sol Tax. Tax is well-known for its role in the shift toward more participatory approaches to social science research. During the 1950s, Tax's "Fox Project" was possibly the first research agenda in anthropology that specifically posited a collaborative approach to knowledge generation and mobilization. Tax believed that ethnography could be elevated through intense democratic, collaborative, open-ended engagements with those being studied. And that the theories that emerged were a genuine effort to understand and improve the world.

Tax is also well-known for organizing the influential "American Indian Chicago Conference" in 1961 at the University of Chicago. This was a historic gathering of approximately 460 Indigenous peoples from over 90 different Nations. The conference's goal was to help these Indigenous voices express their own views and draft a shared "Declaration of Indian Purpose." In 1962, President John F. Kennedy received the declaration at the White House in a ceremony. The document's spirit of self-determination became a cornerstone of subsequent Indigenous activism, including the Red Power movement.

During the 1970s, these types of initiatives were foundational for the development and "evolution" of action research in the social sciences, particularly the idea of the importance of fully engaging participants in the design, conduct, and reflection on the results of action research initiatives, often as part of community development and community problem-solving processes.

This type of engaged, empowering, and "revolutionary" research has become known as Participatory action research  or PAR. PAR is used all over the world, and it combines the intention to create knowledge with the intention to foster change. We shift our natural effect on the 'object of study,' as seen in the classic double slit experiment of quantum physics, to the opposite end of the spectrum: we act intentionally to effect change in a desired direction and consciously contribute to or generate knowledge about a specific process or context.

PAR also attempts to provide a space for us as social science researchers to work through some of the conflict that comes with knowledge generation. It can especially help us recognize and honour the contributions of our co-researchers and participants. Indigenous methodologies take this a step further by emphasizing the importance of relationality in research. More on this in next week's episode!

One criticism of PAR is that the time commitment required to "do it" properly can be extremely demanding. Building collaboration into a PAR project from the start can take some time. And, in my opinion, this is a critical aspect underlying the epistemology of this methodology: you begin by having conversations, meetings, and so on with action research advisors, and then incorporate that "data" into your research proposals and build your research project from the ground up.

Returning to Lewin, it is critical to begin our research by first understanding the nuances of social symbols—the research area—from the perspective of our research participants through social interaction.

One of the most difficult aspects of this approach is ensuring that these interactions are meaningful and genuine. I can't tell you how many participatory "world cafés" I've attended at Royal Roads, usually set up by executive management to "engage with faculty" on some hot-button topic, only to wonder what happens to all the data collected after all that engagement. Typically, participation in these engagement sessions ends once the data is collected. So, are these participatory "world cafés" merely check boxes or a participatory and collaborative avenue to provide an effective and actionable outcome? I'll leave it up to you to decide.

PAR also appears to make the assumption that everyone participating has the same goal as the researcher. So, how do you handle disagreement in PAR, such as when your participants can't collaborate without arguing about an issue or you realize your group has divergent perspectives on a desired outcome?

Over the last six decades, a number of companion inquiry processes to action research have emerged around the world: action inquiry, which originated with William Torbert and his colleagues; action science, which originated with Chris Argyris and his colleagues; and appreciative inquiry or AI, which originated with David Cooperrider.

One of the most important aspects of AI to emphasize is that it is a component of what we might call "the positive turn" in the social sciences. In contrast to most 20th-century social science, which was focused on addressing problems or the “critical turn”, the "positive turn" can best be described as realizing possibilities in research and not focussing specifically on issues of social injustice. Check out the table i created in our unit resources where I contrast these two approaches.

While the critical turn and AI differ in their orientations, foci, methodologies, and intended outcomes, they both offer valuable approaches for understanding and addressing social phenomena. The critical turn critically examines and challenges power structures, while Appreciative Inquiry accentuates strengths and possibilities. Depending on the research context and goals, scholars and practitioners may choose one approach over the other or integrate elements of both to develop a more comprehensive understanding and approach to social issues.

Wow, I had a lot to say today! But we've barely scratched the surface. Next week, we'll dive even deeper as we explore Indigenous methodologies and their importance in research. Until then, I look forward to reading your Unit 7 posts and am even more excited for Unit 10 and your presentations!

And that's a wrap! As always, my virtual door is always open. Have a great week ahead, everyone!