Abstract
In this chapter I discuss action research as an inquiry approach that can be harnessed toward exploring systemically concerns around racism and socially sedimented polarization as rendered problematic by actors in everyday situations. Before I look into its possibilities in this arena, I first show how action research has been conceived by different researchers as involving a conscious orientation of inquirers to concentrate on knowing as a form of action.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Argyris and Schön label their proposed version of Action Research as Action Science (1974). They state that Action Science can be used to facilitate people’s learning across alternative ways of asking and answering questions – from “single loop learning” to “double loop learning.” They suggest that facilitators of action research processes may require some “detachment” in order to observe and locate people’s possible defensiveness (1991, pp. 86–87). Whyte, who labels his own approach Participatory Action Research (PAR), avers that “Action Science calls for a [more] detached observer to document in detail the intervention process” (Whyte, 1991, p. 97). He indicates that he prefers to see (professional) researchers as participants themselves involved in the action, aiding the creation of new lines of action. For an overview of this debate, including accounts of different definitions of participatory action research, see Rahman (1991, pp. 14–18), Gaventa (1991, pp. 123–131), Flood and Romm (1996a, pp. 134–145), and Ellis and Kiely (2000).
- 2.
We held this conversation specifically in relation to her reading of my draft of this chapter – as part of a series of conversations toward the writing of the book being co-authored by Douglas, myself, and Weil exploring the Dynamics of Everyday Institutional Racism.
- 3.
Smith states that Lewin can hereby be seen as trying to “provide a rational basis for change through research” (2001, p. 3).
- 4.
In similar vein, Gustavsen argues that Lewin’s conception of how hypotheses are formulated and tested in the action research process still relies too much on the input/control of the professional researcher and is not sufficiently dialogically oriented (1992, pp. 19–21). Romm and Adman (2000) point out that when action research is undertaken in terms of a dialogical definition of knowledge, the research process itself is assessed for validity in terms of its contribution to engendering more dialogical human relationships.
- 5.
McKay maintains that in calling for participation in processes of knowledge production Freire recognizes that not all social actors need enter the education situation with equal potential, creativity, or contributions. She suggests therefore that all social actors should participate to their fullest ability (1990, p. 98).
- 6.
Gazel reports on her own efforts to “walk the talk” in developing multiracial discourses. She points to efforts at applying a Freirian pedagogical approach – in which she has worked with over 3,000 students from “diverse racial, ethnic and class backgrounds” toward developing a “Multi-Racial Unity Living Experience [MRULE]” (2007, p. 533). She points out that the MRULE program is “sustained by a world-embracing vision for social justice, consistent challenges to the racial status quo from a macro and micro perspective, and the application of race, class, and gender intersectionality to theory and practice” (2007, p. 533).
- 7.
This Skype conversation was held between us around my write-up of their work in this chapter (along with other conversations around our co-authoring of our book exploring the Dynamics of Everyday Institutional Racism (Douglas, Romm, & Weil, in preparation).
- 8.
Earlier work in which Weil was engaged with adolescents and also with children led to her development of the trigger method as a way of opening up areas for collective engagement through preparatory co-inquiry in pairs and trios (personal communication by email, July 2008).
- 9.
Douglas indicates that in order to develop the video scenes, Susan Weil (then employed at the Center for Staff Development at London University) “brought together a team of Black academics, professionals and practitioners in the Race Equality field” to develop the training video (1998, Chapter 4, p. 31).
- 10.
Weil et al. made this guide available to certain people in strategic positions in organizations as well as to the trainers who would be facilitating the training (Douglas and Weil, in Skype conversation with me, June 2008).
- 11.
Weil indicates that the trigger scenes were intended to present situations that were “all too familiar and therefore to which people in different organizational contexts could relate” (personal communication by email, July 2008). Furthermore, the idea was that participants should be chosen from organizations with one of the criteria being that Black and White colleagues should be involved together. McIntyre (personal communication by email, May 2009) asked me about potential risks associated with “triggering emotions in the work place” and wondered what protection the staff had here (after the training). Weil et al. clearly tried to make provision for this by considering the training as oriented to helping people to address their different emotions (through processes of co-learning).
- 12.
This view as expressed by Douglas is in keeping with her views on active involvement of “interviewers” as persons in conversation – see Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1. As I point out in that chapter, this understanding of facilitation is also expressed by Gregory and Romm (2001), who offer a detailed exploration of how one might account for facilitators making content interventions in group processes – as an alternative to process models of group facilitation. We explain this with reference to our involvement in an action research project involving quality initiatives in a region of the National Health Service in the UK.
- 13.
She elucidates that the work that she and Douglas facilitated involved working with Black and White groups (primarily in trainer training) and that people through this process experienced ways of engaging in critically reflexive and challenging learning that “did not lead to paralysis by guilt” (Skype conversation, June 2008).
- 14.
SOLAR stands for the Center for Social and Organizational Learning and Action Research founded by Weil at the University College Northampton.
- 15.
She points out that she elucidated this in her notion of CRAR as outlined in Weil (1998).
- 16.
McKay and Romm suggest that in processes of “active research” (as we call it), it is understood that the exploration of the issues at stake “gives, and will give, rise to a range of both intended and unintended impacts – in the short, medium, and long term” (2008a, p. 164).
- 17.
In his acknowledgments to his book Systemic Action Research (2007) Burns indicates Weil’s influence on him through her creation of SOLAR (see Note 188) and through some of their joint work.
- 18.
Similar points have been made by, inter alia: Ozbekhan (1968, 1970), Churchman (1971, 1979), Mitroff (1994), McKay (1997), Checkland and Holwell (1998), Midgley et al. (1998), Midgley (2000, 2001), Flood (2001), Fuenmayor (2001a, 2001b), Nelson (2001), McIntyre-Mills (2003, 2006a, 2006b), Vargas (2005), Weil et al. (2005), and Christakis and Bausch (2006).
- 19.
Huxham makes the point that in cases where action researchers claim that research data toward the “development of theory” is being generated, “while data from long-term interventions may be used in isolation to generate theory, data from short-term ones must necessarily be used in combination with other data as a contribution to theory” (2003, p. 242).
- 20.
Yilmaz indicates that on 13 February 1975 a “Turkish Federal State of Cyprus [TFSC]” was proclaimed in the Northern part of the island. Greece protested this move, while Turkey recognized it. On 15 November 1983 the TFSC declared its independence as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Again, it was recognized only by Turkey. He refers also to the failed negotiations around the Annan Plan (2004) proposed with the help of the United Nations, and to the current “stalemate” (2006, p. 9).
- 21.
Chigas is named as one of the people acknowledged for her contribution to Laouris et al. (2007) as reported in Section 7.4.3. The idea that the peace movement in Cyprus can be conceptualized in terms of the notion of Track II diplomacy was first suggested to me in personal communication by email (April 2008) with one of the facilitators of some of the SDP sessions – namely, Marios Michaelides.
- 22.
This statement of Christakis was made in answer to a question that I asked him by email (April 2008) about how the issue of political “impact” might be considered. Lassila meanwhile points out that there are various ways in which Track 1 and Track II actions can become linked. While some authors consider them as “distinct branches” that have no interaction (because they are distinct activities), others point to instances of “direct relations” of the Track II to the Track I (2006, p. 12). Lassila also emphasizes (as would Christakis) that it is important not to “put Track I at the top of the hierarchy, with all the ‘unofficial’ tracks [such as Track II] poised to change the direction of Track I” (2006, p. 4). He supports the idea and practice of “multi-track diplomacy” that “no one track is more important than the other, and no track is independent from the others” (2006, p. 4).
- 23.
For example, from 12 to 17 April 2007, three radio programs and one TV program were hosted around this work; and from 6 to 14 July 2007, there were two radio programs, one newspaper interview and two TV programs. The media involved were: Radio CyBC; Radio Mayis; Radio Astra; Rik2 TV; KIBRIS newspaper; BRT TV and KIBRIS TV (see http://blogora.net/page/Interviews). Christakis and Damdelen also presented the Civil Society Dialogue project during the live radio broadcasting of the LIFE EARTH CONCERT (2007).
- 24.
In the USA Christakis has worked, inter alia, with the Americans for Indian Opportunity (AIO) since 1987, using this methodology for generating dialogue around action options for Native American communities within the USA and for Indigenous people globally. He explained to me (via email, August 2008) that he “started working with AIO in 1987, since he was invited to work with them following a conference presentation that he had given at the time (at an international conference). LaDonna Harris (founder of the AIO), who was at the conference, had been “looking for a conflict resolution approach to help the tribes. She had tried everything and was not satisfied because it was alien to the Native American style of dialogue and consensus building. She tried SDD, fell in love with it, and has been an advocate and a promoter ever since.” Christakis became an elected member of the AIO Board in 2006 in appreciation of his contributions (cf. http://www.aio.org/21228%20Ambassador%20Newsletter.pdf). Christakis pointed out to me (email communication, August 2008) that he has since “started calling myself Greek Native American instead of Greek American.” (As I commented in Chapter 1, Section 1.4, this to me as an indication of how a sense of belonging to a community can be developed through joining with others in terms of some purpose.) In 2008–2009, Christakis facilitated some sessions of virtual encounters between a set of international stakeholders whom he considered as experienced in Structured Design Process (SDP) as a methodology for generating e-democracy, in order to consider factors that might be potential roadblocks to Obama’s vision of bottom-up democracy. See http://obamavision.wikispaces.com for the full account of how the SDP sessions were set up and outcomes generated (which were communicated to Obama’s team at http://change.gov/open for questions).
- 25.
Christakis and Bausch note that SDP draws on a variety of “consensus methods” to help to structure the dialogical process (2006, p. 25). Their reference to these methods, and to the development of a consensual linguistic domain, should be read in the context of their reference to Habermas and his suggestions for consensual understanding being the regulatory ideal toward which discourse is directed. See also Chapter 6, Section 6.3.2.1; and see Romm (2006c).
- 26.
This view of theirs ties in with Churchman’s proposal that we need to make provision in the inquiry process for the necessary social discourse that can sweep in alternative values, ways of life, ways of seeing, and ways of understanding that form the basis of intersubjectively-generated thinking and being (Churchman, 1979, p. 9).
- 27.
Chiasson (2001, p. 1) remarks that Peirce’s use of the different words abduction and retroduction seems to point to different foci; but Paavola (2004, p. 4) suggests that we can consider that Peirce used these terms interchangeably (to point to a form of logical inference distinct from induction and deduction).
- 28.
Burch indicates that in some of his writings Peirce characterized his approach as “pragmaticism” to point to his proposed form of pragmatism (2006, p. 5).
- 29.
This composition of the authorship is not spelled out explicitly in the report – but can be gleaned by comparing the author list with an indication at the end of the report of the composition of the knowledge management team and those involved in the SDDP. Also, in their “credits”, the authors thank the participants of the co-laboratory for their “valuable comments and contributions” (2007, p. 22).
- 30.
A slightly modified version of this picture can be found in Laouris et al. (2009).
- 31.
Laouris et al. suggest that clarity of mind and hearts “is very important when actors engage in a group dialogue committed to put together their unbiased ideas and thoughts trying to design a process based on their collective wisdom” (2007, p. 21). When they propose that hearts should be engaged, this implies (as I read it) that they do not define “bias” in terms of trying to become detached from one’s own and others’ concerns. Rather, their use of the word “bias” means here the incapacity to examine carefully alternative perspectives around concerns that may be brought to bear.
- 32.
Yilmaz makes a similar point when he argues that the new Cypriot state (if established) “would be a model to which many other nations and peoples will look to guide the resolution of their own conflicts and ethnic tensions” (2006, p. 1). He argues that it is indeed for this reason that that the UN, “acting on behalf of the International Community … has always given a special importance to the Cyprus problem” (2006, p. 1).
- 33.
Having seen the queries raised by Vratuša in an email forwarded to me by Christakis, I suggested that these should be taken seriously, because, as I remarked, self-reflection provides a route to “admitting and accounting for, one’s way of being involved” (July, 2008). Some of the interchanges around her invitation can be seen at: http://www.blogora.net/page/On+Reflective+Practice (entitled “Practicing Self-reflection”). Other exchanges took place directly over the email (as some people experienced difficulty at times accessing the site).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Romm, N. (2010). Action Research: Exploring in Action the Meaning of Research as Change in Complex Living Systems. In: New Racism. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8728-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8728-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8727-0
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8728-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)