Methodological implications of Marxian praxis in action research

The specifics of praxis

Often we conceive the line between action research and praxis as so fine that the two concepts become synonymous. As a research methodology that explicitly links theory and practice, action research represents one of the most powerful forms of praxis both inside and outside the academy. Whether in the classroom or the community, the hospital or the factory, whenever an action researcher is utilizing his or her theoretical and methodological knowledge to exact some manner of positive social change, that individual is working within the tradition of praxis. However, in operating in this tradition, the conceptual vastness of praxis may cause one to be lost in a forest of meaning. In such a scenario, praxis may be taken for granted, regulated to a superficial definition and little else.

What makes action research such a deeply humanist methodology is that reflection is integrated into numerous stages of the process. By reflecting on the role of praxis in action research, numerous theoretical possibilities emerge. Praxis is not a singularity or a monolithic structure that stands as an all-or-nothing proposition for researchers. Praxis comes in numerous forms, dependent on the theory and practice that constitute it. The praxis of a classroom-based action researcher differs from that of a participatory action researcher. In considering these different contexts, action researchers are not evoking the same praxis any more than they are creating the same manner of change. Among these different theory-practice relations, Marxian praxis functions as one of the most powerful forms, one great epistemological depth and revolutionary potential.

In many ways, Marx’s writings embody many of the central principles of action research. Marx’s texts were firmly rooted in a socio-political realm as opposed to purely abstract or experimental spheres. Moreover, Marxism is a theory that serves and seeks to empower marginalized populations. The proletariat is still a political, historical, and methodological agent, and class relations continue to demand contemporary study. Investigating the inequalities, produced by the capitalist political economy, persists as a focus for many action researchers who return to Marx’s writings in order to understand how capitalism developed over time and how the inner workings of capital manifest and negatively impact the working class.

Above all of these characteristics, Marx’s conception of praxis functions as the strongest connection to action research. As both a theory of knowledge and a theory of action, Marxian praxis, most explicitly described in the Theses of Feuerbach, touches numerous phases of the action research process. One can link the idea of action research to one of Marx’s (2000) famous quotations: “the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it” (p. 273). In this simple declaration, knowledge, primarily conceived as purely an intellectual pursuit, was freed in order to become intertwined with action. More important, in revisiting Marx, action researchers find more than a mere historical precursor to their work. Instead, we find, in Marxian praxis, a spring of inspiration that directly influences the theory and practice behind action research in the twenty-first century.

A Marxist’s journey in action research

My introductions to both Marxist theory and action research occurred during my doctoral education through separate tracks of coursework in Educational Studies. I was not exposed to either framework beforehand, which made these learning experiences truly enlightening. Marxism, in particular, captivated my interests. As someone with a background in the humanities, Marxism possessed correlations to my prior field of study in terms of developing ways of understanding the self and the world. However, Marxism, for me, transcended much of my previous education in that the theoretical framework provided crucial explanations to the problems of inequality, the domination of the commodity form, and the corrosive influence of compulsory labor—problems that fascinated me for much of my adult life.

When I began my research methods sequence in action research, immediate points of intersection presented themselves, yet I also was somewhat frustrated that these intersections were not explicit. While Marxist theory has a concrete way of understanding the world, action research’s great inclusivity also instilled a kind of methodological unwieldiness to it. The relationship between action research and theory can be at times ill-defined or obscured (Dick, Stringer, & Huxham, 2009). Davydd Greenwood (2015) speaks to action research’s numerous possibilities when arguing that “AR can be both qualitative and quantitative, that it is not a theory or a method but a strategy for using multiple theories and methods opportunistically for the purpose of promoting democratic social change” (p. 199). Theory is ideally supposed to inform action research, but at times, I read theory’s inclusion as perfunctory or not impacting the research in a substantial way. Moreover, the nature of that theory, at times, did not address larger structural and economic concerns, and instead, the study was intensely focused on the issue at hand.

This lacking, in my estimation, is why greater consideration of Marxian praxis is needed in action research. Action research’s free-flowing form and do-it-yourself spirit create the potential for a mode of isolation to proliferate throughout the methodology. Such a contention is somewhat ironic given the relationships action research forges among practitioners, stakeholders, and communities. The isolation that I’m referring to is a manner of methodological isolation. Although there is great collegiately within the action research community, there is a tendency for each action research experience to stand alone (Altrichter & Gstettner, 1997). Empowered by multiplicity in theory and methodology as well as great research autonomy, the multitude of divergent research pathways can scatter researchers without a common point of convergence. Publications like Action Research and conferences like ALARA World Conference mitigate this tendency, yet when action research studies are disconnected from principles of political economy and larger theoretical frameworks, what unifying construct fashions constellations among the stars of action research studies?

Although by no means all-encompassing, Marxian praxis can unite a great many research studies. In this way, it can be defined as a mode of theoretically-based action that critically explores the political, economic, and social origins and implications of material and ideological issues to create positive social change. To further understand the nature of this definition, returning to the writings of Marx serves a crucial starting point—enabling interested scholars to develop their own connections between Marxism and action research.

The theses of Feuerbach as an action research text

The relationship between praxis and action research has been previously established by a select group of prominent scholars. Orlando Fals Borda (2013) located the roots of Participatory Action Research (PAR) in classical conceptions of praxis, intertwining methodological and axiological threads into the theory-practice relation that defines praxis. The work of Jürgen Habermas is frequently cited in action research studies as it relates to praxis as an act of knowledge construction subsequently employed for social change (Berlinck & Saito, 2010). Praxis plays an integral role in the work of Paulo Freire whose use of the concept in Pedagogy of the Oppressed carries several Marxist characteristics. Indeed, Freire (2005) conceives praxis as a liberatory process, one that is deeply reflective of its composition and transformative in its actualization: “liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it” (p. 79). As previously stated, praxis thus comes in numerous forms, and the concept can be modified for specific aims. Marxian praxis anticipates all of these formulations, but more than that, Marx’s original conception of praxis possesses several specific nuances often glossed over in the frequent utilizations of the term across time.

Throughout Marx’s voluminous writings, one can look to any specific text and raise it up as a guidebook to praxis. The Communist Manifesto was a book that called for workers of the world to unite, and unite they did. No other text ever produced possessed as much revolutionary fire as that book, connecting generations to revolt against the capitalist oppression that had dominated their lives. Marx’s masterpiece, Capital, also functions a work of praxis, a text that has catalyzed numerous social moments as a result of its encyclopedic analysis of the inner mechanisms and implications of capitalism. Despite the significance of these two works, however, Marx’s 1845 text, Theses on Feuerbach, serves as the most concise and crystallized explanation of Marxian praxis, and this text, in particular, speaks a great deal to action research. Conceived as a set of observations and responses to his contemporary Ludwig Feuerbach’s materialist philosophy, Marx’s eleven short reflections transform materialism from a purely philosophical concept to a political one.

The first thesis sets the tone for the rest of the document, and like many of the theses, it can be read not only from the frames of materialism and Marxism, but also from the perspective of action research as Marx (2000) writes: “the chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism—that of Feuerbach included—is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively” (p. 176). From the outset, Marx is situating materialism in a new arena, not in the mind, but rather in human action. Naturally, this is also an objective of many action researchers that also seek to transfer research methodologies outside of the academy or the laboratory and into the material world. Reading a bit more closely, Marx offers another lesson regarding the nature of practice with the utilization of the words, “not subjectively.” Later in thesis one, Marx discusses how human activity is “objective” or empirical, setting the stage for Marx’s later transition from philosophy to a more scientific investigation of capitalism.

In the arena of action research, Marx’s insistence that praxis as a window into objective reality adds empirical credence to praxis. Praxis occurs outside of the subjective scope of the consciousness; it happens in the open air of the world, immediately observable and ascertainable via sensory experiences. In this way, praxis aspires to a form of objectivity, but diverges from a positivist program when one considers purpose. This form of empiricism is one that seeks to answer the practical questions of experience as Marx writes in thesis eight: “all social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice” (p. 178).

In another proclamation that speaks directly to action researchers, Marx’s words precede Dewey in their insistence that meaningful problems can find their solution not in isolation, but rather in life. When one reads Capital or later Marx, there are—despite considerable theoretical and abstract currents throughout—implications for everyday life, which is why there is a timeless quality to Marx’s writings and why scholars return to Marx when the problems of capitalism manifest today. Social phenomena are not static concepts that exist in abstraction, but rather are dynamic ones that occur in realms of action, and seen so, Marx rightly contends that these phenomena are best met head-on, approached in the same terms in which they arise as opposed to a circuitous and discordant route via pure theory.

These processes, as described in the Theses on Feuerbach, are what ultimately give birth to Marxian praxis. Marx states that theory is inadequate in truly comprehending social phenomena and thus practice needs to be integrated in order to meet such concepts on their own terms. What proves further interesting is that Marx’s insistence on practice remains a philosophical question, a mode of understanding and interpretation. While the point of philosophy or theory is, as Marx writes in thesis eleven, to change the world, interpretation remains a crucial component of engendering this change. However, Marx espouses a different mode of interpretation, as stated in thesis two, one that folds backward into praxis: “the question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth—i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question” (p. 171). For Marx, understanding is not something that occurs purely within the realm of thought, but is itself an action that manifests in material outcomes. The basis of understanding—an idea crucial to the materialism—arises from the social conditions that we seek to understand.

Yu Wu-jin (2009) extends this point in the field of hermeneutics where Marx’s mode of interpretation is a practical one: “Marx's first contribution to hermeneutics is that he introduces the concept of practice into hermeneutics and regards it as the basis and the premise of all understanding and interpretation” (p. 121). Theory, interpretation, and research, these intellectual pursuits must, for Marx, have an anchor in the material world to have meaning, and this anchor is praxis. This is vividly realized in action research, which endeavors to generate knowledge and understanding through the practical processes of everyday experience. Understanding the effects of social conditions is best ascertained from working with people instead of abstracting the problem in an inorganic way.

Ushering forth changes in the material world and the self, revolutionary praxis is evoked from the materialistic dialectic within the human subject both at the center and periphery, simultaneously changing and being changed by the world. Alex Loftus (2009) describes how, in the Theses, Marx “argues for a position in which philosophy and practice are part of a differentiated unity: learning about the world is a process of changing it, based on the lessons gained from thinking about it and so on” (p. 164). Within this differentiated unity, there is considerable revolutionary potential. Action research functions as an example of revolutionary praxis, utilizing praxis simultaneously as a theory of knowledge and action. Within this composition, praxis’ generates new theories regarding the methodology as well as the means with which to put those methods into practice.

Marxian praxis as a theory of knowledge

Praxis is often rendered as a simple mathematical formula: the sum of a theory + practice. Marxian praxis, however, employs this equation recursively, transferring the theory + practice unification back to both theory and practice, respectively. In considering this metaphor a bit more deeply, action researchers can reflect on how praxis functions as a theory of knowledge. In Marxist theory, the epistemological foundations of praxis are rooted in the material world, lifting upward from the activities of people into the realms of thought as opposed to a top-down structure where praxis comes from the theoretician on high.

Taken a step further, we can consider how theoretical constructs answer a human need of some kind. Such considerations are consistent with Marx and Engels’ (1976) contentions in The German Ideology where he argues that ideas originate in the material realm of human need and interaction as opposed to an abstract realm: “men are producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc…Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious being, and the being of men is their actual life process” (p. 42). For Marx, consciousness is living; it is rooted in the life of individuals—in their activities and relationships with others. Such arguments further point to the recursivity of praxis where a way of thinking is simultaneously the generative components and outcome of praxis (a point that will be of some significance when thinking about action research cycles).

Inspired by Marist philosophy in many respects, Frankfurt School theorists, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer (2011) come to similar conclusions in a book that speaks greatly to action research, Towards a New Manifesto, where the two engage in a free-flowing dialog over many central themes of their work. Here, Horkheimer argues that “theory is theory in the authentic sense only when it serves practice. Theory that wishes to be sufficient unto itself is bad theory. On the other hand, it is also bad theory if it exists only to produce something or other” (p. 76).

While this quotation may read as a playful word game, the insistence that theory and practice should only work in tandem proves quite radical. Action researchers, still today, continue to insist that theory, research, and science are not concepts that should be separated from practice, despite resistance from the larger academic community. Horkheimer speaks to all action researchers via this insistence, but the last sentence requires a bit more deliberation, for what is meant by arguing that theory is “bad” if it exists only to produce? As previously mentioned, Marxist theory sees theory, knowledge, and research as results of productive processes that in conjunction with practice can produce social change. However, Horkheimer implicitly questions the nature of this production, leading to two larger epistemological implications of praxis as a theory of knowledge.

The first implication relates to modes of uncritical production or production that further establishes capitalist hegemony and oppression. This mode of uncritical production is just as applicable within the academy as it is in the factory where research and knowledge are produced without consulting the social relations that contribute to their generation. Notable Marxist theorist, György Lukács (1971) speaks to this notion in his landmark work, History and Class Consciousness: “when ‘science’ maintains that the manner in which data immediately present themselves is an adequate foundation of scientific conceputalisation and that the actual form of these data is the appropriate starting point for the formation of scientific concepts, it thereby takes its stand simply and dogmatically on the basis of capitalist society” (p. 7). Lukács’ conclusions represent Horkheimer’s category of “bad theory” in that theory utilized in the production of scientific data is employed purely for production’s sake. Uncritically producing data only reinforces the ideology inherent in conventional class relations in which production functions as the means, ends, and justification for much of society. In order to counteract the production fetish that drives the current status quo, researchers must continually question the “what” and the “how” within knowledge production, for this mode of reflection functions as a mode of epistemological praxis.

This leads to the second implication of Horkheimer’s critique: theory utilized only for the sake of producing something neglects the possibility of praxis as not only a way of generating social change, but also a way of conceptualizing it. This pivotal point of departure is crucial in formulating effective praxis, for if theory and reflective action are not employed to question contemporary practices, then there is less possibility for praxis to create future change. Bjørn Gustavsen (2003) discusses how the flexible temporality within theory enables an action researcher to consider both present and future practice: “the role of theory, then, is not only to help us make a picture of the world as it is, but also—and of greater importance—actually to make us see how the world could have been. Understanding is consequently something that plays itself out between three reference points: theory, practices as they are and practices as they could have been” (p. 156). In Gustasven’s triad, theory mediates present and future practice, and this mediation serves as a form of praxis itself often utilized in action research. Perhaps the action research methodology that best represents this praxis is the future creating workshops, which create temporal moments in which the past and future are critiqued and analyzed in order to establish a better future for the participants (Jungk & Müller, 1987). In these research scenarios, praxis-as-epistemology functions not as a process of present-fixated production, but as knowledge generation directed towards engendering a better tomorrow.

Marxian praxis as a theory of action

Karl Marx wrote hundreds of thousands of words to lay bare the oppressive nature of capitalism, and since that time, theorists following in his footsteps have composed thousands of texts extending his critique. When one considers the intimidating library composed as a monument to Marxism, there is a tendency, particularly today, to forget that Marxism is first and foremost a theory of action. During the time of their composition, Marx believed his texts would function as instruments of practice. Although the Communist Revolution misappropriated Marxist theory, it still represented an example of how theory could serve as the spark to launch practice on a global scale.

Action research belongs to this tradition, a mode of research that embodies what Aldofo Sanchez Vazquez (1977) insists in The Philosophy of Praxis: “the foundation of truth, in other words, is to be found outside the sphere of knowledge itself. The thought must seek its truth outside itself, by taking a material form, the form of particle activity, in reality itself” (p. 120). As the previous section detailed, praxis is an epistemology, a theory of knowledge concerned with knowledge generation, but ultimately this epistemology must be rooted in the material realm of activity in order to have relevance. This endeavor holds profound significance at both the individual and collective level, for within these two levels, praxis as a theory of action manifests in distinct ways.

First and foremost, Marxism is a philosophy for the people. In Marxian representations of science and history, no one figure stands above the collective, but rather progress is the product of the collective labor of humanity. Praxis and action research, too, possess clear implications for the collective. These active processes among individuals do not occur in isolation, for within isolation there can be no praxis or action research. Instead, it requires individuals working together to accomplish something of significance for all, a goal that stands as a central tenet of Marxist theory as well. Matts Mattson and Stephen Kemmis (2007) situates the role of collective in the arena of Marxian praxis: “fundamental changes to capitalist society would be brought about only by broad participation of the working class and their allies, acting as a collective subject, with collective agency, to restructure their world in the interests of the good. For Marx, such revolutionary action would be regarded as praxis” (p. 187). The notion of “revolutionary action” as a term synonymous with Marxian praxis seems like an appropriate connection, but it is important to approach the term, “revolutionary,” in a non-mystified way, for any action that unites the interests of individuals against the oppressive force of capital is revolutionary, and if action research accomplishes such an objective, it holds a revolutionary character.

Praxis as a form of collective action—connected to theory—represents as one half of a dialectic, but is incomplete if not jointly considered with praxis from the perspective of the individual or more specifically, praxis at the level of consciousness. This form of praxis differs from praxis as epistemology, for it stands as a type of individual action embedded in one’s identity. In his recent book, The Philosophy of Praxis, Andrew Feenberg (2014) places praxis as a philosophy of action rooted in one’s being: “when philosophy of praxis contends that human action is philosophically relevant not just in ethics or politics but in all domains, it is asserting a wholly original ontological position. For this philosophy, human action touches being as such, and not simply special domains we usually conceive as affected by our actions” (p. 4). Once again, the recursive nature of Marxian praxis is brought to the forefront of the discussion. Praxis touches everything, moving both outward and inward, affecting both the environment and the individuals creating the change. This inward movement in praxis proves to be of significance when considering Marxist theory, and common allegations against it that it is overly deterministic and does not adequately conceptualize the subject. Tamara Dlugach (2012) speaks to this point when considering the internal–external relation within human action:

At the very first moment of activity, when man is already man, there occurs an inversion of all aspects of activity such that activity itself conditions the emergence of goal-oriented determination. Then it is not the tool and not activity that determines man, but man who determines them by determining himself. Then consciousness and will (the persistent striving to change oneself and the object) are involved in actions. (p. 97)

In action research, Marxian praxis as a theory of action is prevalent throughout the methodology. Theory is not enough, nor is merely researching a social phenomenon. This belief is deeply connected to the action researcher’s identity as Lynne Chisholm (1990) argues: “theorising is essential for problem-solving, but it can never fully resolve the problems encountered in action research. In this context, we are essentially confronted with sets of contradictions and oppositions in relations to ourselves as human beings, not simply in our identities as researcher” (p. 253). The “action” in action research is not just a methodological categorization, but speaks to the transportation of research out of purely academic realms into realms of everyday life.

Just as in Marxism, action research accomplishes this relevance where all people—not just researchers, scholars, and theorists—have a stake in the work being accomplished. In these activities, theory, as Bob Dick, Ernie Stringer, and Chris Huxham (2009) state, becomes “a grand word for these everyday activities of knowing, understanding and making sense” (p. 7). Within both Marxian and action research frameworks, theory becomes a practical guiding force of action, and true praxis is the result. However, the action generated in this process is what leaves the indelible mark on the world, both the larger societal world and the inner-life of the individuals participating, transforming theory and research into potentially revolutionary forces.

The methodological implications of Marxian praxis

Action research embodies several characteristics of Marxian praxis, but one should not take this relationship for granted. Performing action research does not immediately imply that it is representative of Marxian praxis, not only because other forms of praxis could be employed, but also because Marxian praxis insists upon certain rigorous epistemological and active components that must be incorporated. Olav Eikeland (2007) offers a crucial point in regard to how action researchers must carefully consider theoretical integration into their work: “attempts at making research knowledge relevant as ‘actionable’ or ‘workable’ are high on the agenda, but quite often without asking questions about what kind of knowledge is attempted conveyed” (p. 45). Instilling an active process into research is fundamental to action research definitions, but further considering the nature of both the theory and action within one’s research is essential when answering demands of praxis. A critical modality is needed to establish a particular mode of praxis, Marxian praxis as well as other critical forms.

For Marxian praxis, in particular, this critical modality splinters into numerous forms, including critiquing conventional forms of research that are reflective of the political economy of the academy. Mary Brydon-Miller, Davydd Greenwood, and Patricia Maguire (2003) situate action research in political praxis, a theory–action relationship with a socio-political context: “we think many action researchers would have to admit that they came to theory largely as a way of justifying what they knew was correct to begin with; to legitimize a politically informed and effective form of knowledge generated through experience” (p. 15). Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, and Maguire further argue that one legitimatizing force in action research is the integration of theory that challenge dominant research paradigms like positivism.

Placing action research in contrast to purely “scientific” modes of research is a continual tension within action research, one that both sets it apart from traditional research methodologies by evoking a humanist capacity, but also one that undermines its credibility in certain academic circles. Marxists would characterize this tension as dialectical, springing forth from the materialist philosophy that Marx critiqued in the Theses on Feuerbach. Action research, unlike other methodologies, is directly intertwined with the material circumstances that produce the research. Moreover, this relationship between the academy/schools of research and the world of everyday life these schools examine produce a critical formulation. Richard Lewontin and Richard Levins (2007) speak to this relationship in their book, Under the Influence: Dialectical Essays on Ecology, Agriculture, and Health, where they state that “dialectical materialism is unique among the critiques of science in that its roots are outside the academy in political struggle as well as within, that it directs criticism both at reductionism and idealism” (p. 103). The critical current that Marxism and action research share is one that not only employs praxis to change the material world, but also interrogates dominant political ideologies that are often at the heart of traditional modes of research. Drawing from Lewontin and Levins, Faith Agostinone-Wilson (2013) places praxis at the forefront of a new research methodology based on dialectical materialism: “deconstruction of existing ideological needs to occur in order to be praxis, which is an entirely different starting point than used in mainstream research, where the boundaries of a problem are viewed as a given, with inquiry acting within those boundaries” (p. 73).

Action research, empowered by Marxian praxis, effectively breaks down the boundaries confining the research process, the boundaries of capitalism and the dominant epistemological boundaries of science. Such boundaries are not exclusive, but consistently intertwine to form something of a false praxis; this false praxis does not endeavor to change the world, but rather to maintain the status quo. The interests of capital routinely funnel resources into modes of research that will reinforce its material and hegemonic dominance. Those who perform research that employs Marxian praxis critique these processes either directly by examining and seeking to change the problem itself or indirectly by actively critiquing the systems of knowledge that produce the problem. Both utilizations of critique correlate with action research and serve as capable tools for disrupting the continuation of capitalist hegemony.

Consider this approach from the perspective of classroom-based action research. Primarily conceptualized as a way to reflect on one’s practice as an educator and/or enact change in the classroom (or extend that change outside it), this form of action research could be empowered with Marxian praxis by following a three-stage process. The first stage consists of asking praxis-oriented questions that extend beyond the research site. Ordinarily, action research requires a level of specific reflection focused on the immediate task at hand and the stakeholders involved. However, questions directed to the surrounding relations yield new directions. In the example of classroom-based action research, asking questions regarding the classroom’s relation to the political economy, labor and production, everyday life, and technology could influence the direction of the study. For instance, instead of conceptualizing the classroom as an insular concept, asking questions regarding the classroom’s larger relation to labor holds numerous possibilities. Education as a manner of career preparation that instills a particular ideological understanding of capital is a very real issue that could be further investigated in an action research study.

The second stage harkens back to Marxian praxis as an epistemology or a theory of knowledge. Theoretical frameworks and literature reviews are crucial components of an action research study, but integrating praxis into action research requires a broader mobilization of theory. Returning to the classroom-based action research example, a Marxian praxis-oriented approach would require thorough examinations of the historical, political, and economic processes at play. Once more, this requires the researchers and participants to go beyond the somewhat restricted methodological perspective that popular social science models prescribe. The classroom is not a self-replicating concept, but rather is reproduced daily by historical, political, and economic forces as well as the students and teachers who produce the classroom experience. Marxist scholars have long called for investigation of the political economy whenever performing social science research, but this suggestion is often not taken seriously. Although action researchers should not blindly become economic determinists, understanding and writing about political economy is a crucial component to a Marxian praxis-oriented approach. The classroom, itself, is a site heavy with economic tensions, tensions that should be explored and confronted via action research studies.

The final stage of this approach is the action stage where praxis and action research most clearly intersect. The difference lies in the nature of the action with praxis-oriented approaches existing in a larger external theoretical and material spatiality. Classroom-based action research produces profound implications within the classroom: teachers reflect on and improve their practice; students create projects in their communities that possess active learning components; and greater knowledge of education as a process is generated. Praxis-based models extend the process further, instilling a more critical modality. Marxian praxis-oriented projects for classroom-based action research could consist of collaborating with students to investigate exploitative work conditions in the community, reflecting as a teacher on the pervasive manners of career training and indoctrination taking place in schools, or investigating labor issues within the school itself from the perspective of teachers or other school staff. Such studies have concrete implications for students, teachers, and the larger community—confronting inequalities in society and exposing them to the light of action research.

Table 1 summarizes the differences between a conventional action research approach and one empowered by Marxian praxis.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Traditional action research–Marxian praxis comparison.

	Traditional AR methodologies	Marxian praxis methodologies
Theoretical focus	A selection or synthesis from a variety of theoretical frameworks	A purposeful selection of Marxist principles to serve as an analytical framework for the research
Methodological structure	A cycle-based structure that incorporates action into a research cycle	A dialectical structure that addresses an assemblage of forces to generate understanding
Critique actualization	Localized to generate relevant change for the stakeholders involved in the study	Conceptualized to confront larger issues of capitalism and oppression
Treatment of dominant structures of knowledge	Actively seeking alternative structures of knowledge to create change and foster community	Actively critical of such structures as they are reflective of capitalist interests
Treatment of the theory–praxis relation	A free-flowing collection of potential theories and actions used to define the methodology	A relation employed specifically as a theory of knowledge as well as a theory of action
Role of political economy	At times ambivalent, depending on the specific researcher and study	An essential contextual and analytical force used as a way to interpret findings

Suggesting this model is not to contend that current forms of action research are incomplete. Certain studies and situations require a narrower scope and a different variant of praxis. The benefits of this variant lie in larger considerations of theory and political economy and a more critical form of action. Additionally, the current time in which we are living, a time when issues of inequality are continually brought to the forefront, beckons such models to be employed. Since the nineteenth century, Marxian praxis has been a weapon against inequality across the world. Action research continues this tradition, each study a small step toward creating a more egalitarian society.

Limitations and the road forward

The relation between Marxian praxis and action research is fluid, but not without limitation. Recalling the introduction, there are many different forms of praxis. The Marxian variant is an early formulation, but in focusing on this particular form, one neglects other formulations and is challenged by the limitations of a singular approach. Action research is an inclusive methodology, open to a variety of viewpoints. Marxism compels researchers to narrow their investigations to that of political economy and economic spheres, structures that have far-reaching implications, but may not appeal to all researchers. This is particularly true considering Marxism’s tension with identity politics. Most Marxists are critical of the elevation of identity politics in scholarly and mainstream discourse, arguing that such elevations neglect the pivotal economic factors at the root of societal problems (Agostinone-Wilson, 2010).

This tension can be further examined when considering the problematic role of the subject/stakeholder in Marxist theory. Marx’s manner of argumentation often generalizes the subject to the point that the individual is buried within the collective. As a result, Marxian praxis, as an extension of this argumentation, becomes challenging to practically actualize, making it somewhat discordant with fundamental principles of action research. This is further complicated when considering that past expressions of Marxian praxis—formation of labor unions, manifestations of political revolutions, or other manners of political protest/activism—are often not situated in terms of scholarly inquiry and research methodologies.

These limitations, however, are answered by the potentiality of integrating action research into praxis. Much of this article has been dedicated to examining the characteristics of Marxian praxis and how it can empower action research. Yet, the reversing the relation also holds serious merit as one considers what action research brings to Marxian praxis. Action research’s inclusivity of different methodologies and frameworks, emphasis on the subject as a participant in the research process, and actualization as a mode of scholarly inquiry offer new directions for Marxism. As a framework for understanding the machinations of capital and its oppressive tendencies, Marxists continually seek new ways to perform acts of praxis. Action research answers this need in a unique and profound way. One can envision any number of action research projects, like the one described in the previous section, where Marxist principles are reinvigorated. As both Marxists and action researchers seek to positively generate social change and critique oppressive social forces, the commonalities uniting the two frameworks make for a strong partnership.

Returning to both Marx and Freire, praxis is a reflective process. It is a way to view the world. The first pivotal step that action researchers should take when engaging in praxis is a moment of reflection regarding the theoretical and active principles that they will be utilizing in a study. Reflecting on the pertinent nuances of Marxian praxis can be a useful component of praxis. From the perspectives of epistemology and practice, Marxian praxis within the scope of action research holds powerful potentialities, particularly when researchers are engaging with the realms of political economy and labor. The world beckons change. Every moment sparkles with revolutionary potential. Praxis enables us to seize that potential, but understanding this process is a process in itself. Marx’s words still ring true “the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” However, Marx does not seek to cast interpretation and understanding aside. Both interpreting and change are processes of critical importance, a sentiment well-understood by action researchers, creating new projects in the name of action.