Reflections on the potential (and limits) of action research as ethos,methodology and practice: A case study of a women’s empowerment programme in the Middle East

Introduction

In the past few years, countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have experienced significant political and social change, with citizen action and widespread public protests generating new opportunities for political change and collective action. Women have played a prominent role, attempting to become more engaged in the public and political spheres beyond direct participation; and advocating for change. Governments, international organisations and civil society groups have championed a variety of approaches and strategies to increase women’s political and economic participation and their effectiveness at leadership levels (National Democratic Institute, 2013; The World Bank, 2013). One of these ways has been the integration of an evidence-based approach to advocacy, led by and targeting women. Action research is argued to be a viable tool for engaging coalitions of women activists together with stakeholders (Farrell, 2014; INTRAC, unpublished internal document).

This paper presents a case study of a multi-country British Council supported programme that incorporated an action research approach. ² It is entitled Women Participating in Public Life (WPIPL) and it was implemented in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. Drawing from the experiences and perceptions of participants and other stakeholders involved in the WPIPL programme, it offers a new and reflective insight into the theory and practice of action research by examining the extent to which Participatory Action Research (PAR) ³ as an ethos and methodology can be considered a viable tool for the empowerment of women in civic and political life in the MENA region.

After introducing the case study under examination, we present the methodology and limitations of this participatory reflection exercise and its outcome in the form of this paper. Three main findings are then discussed: (1) PAR distinctiveness and its capacity to strengthen advocacy work; (2) the positive and transformative effects of PAR; (3) challenges that limit the potential of PAR. In the concluding reflections, we answer the core questions that this paper asks: (1) to what extent did the practice (of applying action research within the WPIPL) mirror the promise of action research, and PAR in particular, as purported by the theory; and (2) does PAR offer anything of value to empowerment and sustainable change among women and potentially other civil society actors in the MENA region? Whilst identifying the positive aspects of this approach, the paper also flags some important challenges.

WPIPL: A case study

Women’s political empowerment is envisaged as the vehicle that allows women to exercise their leadership … Political empowerment also implies enhancing individual competencies, building collectives and developing collaborations and networks for women to be effective agents of change. (Farrell, 2014, p. 816) ⁴

In this context, despite a vast number of women’s empowerment initiatives, women’s active engagement in the public and political sphere remains limited. Moreover, beyond formal politics, little is known about how women can influence decision-making and the different strategies and pathways that are effective for engaging such processes. For instance, it is to be noted that women’s political participation can take place in many different forms through charitable organisations and women’s research centres (Derichs, 2010). This suggests the need for new approaches to better understanding and strengthening women’s participation. For those not engaged, we must understand the reasons that inhibit them and find ways to reach out and draw them in. For those who do have an interest in the political sphere or who have reached decision-making positions, their journey and degree of influence remain under-researched. The need for a deeper and more critical understanding of the issues that confront women is clear. Such an evidence base could significantly strengthen advocacy efforts. It is this broader view of political participation and the importance of evidence-based advocacy that underpins the British Council and INTRAC’s strategy in WPIPL.

The WPIPL programme and its participants to the action research component constitute the units of analysis in this critical case study (Yin, 2003). The programme, implemented between 2012 and 2016, aimed at building the capacity of women and broad-based support for their active involvement in public life including national and local political processes in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine and Tunisia through three main strategies: the British Council’s Active Citizens programme, ⁵ action research, and learning networking and coalition building.

WPIPL included women, and a few men, practitioners, activists and volunteers members of civil society organisations based in the target countries. The British Council regional and country offices identified the organisations based on four strategies depending on the different contexts. In Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Morocco, the country offices held information sessions and launched open calls for application. In Tunisia, a main institutional partner, the Coalition of Women of Tunisia, was identified upfront as the only registered women’s coalition in the country consisting of more than 30 organisations. In Libya, due to the constraints of the post-conflict environment, the country office selected the organisations based on their knowledge of a complex context where civil society organisations and women organisations in particular were only a recent product of the 2011 revolution. In Egypt, the country office reached out directly to previously known organisations but also launched a call for interest and selected participants from among those who applied.

Once the organisations were identified, the participants to the action research component were nominated by their respective organisations according to criteria developed by the WPIPL programme. Those criteria were: (1) Strong background and commitment on working on women’s political participation issues; (2) rooted in local civil society through involvement in some organisation(s) with solid experience in this field; (3) ability and willingness to work with others, compromise as necessary to enable the group to move forwards together; (4) aware of and prepared to put in the time and effort over a period of time understanding that there will not be a great deal of funding attached to the programme; (5) readiness to accept the Action Research Report as the basis for working towards evidence-based advocacy so as not to undermine the efforts and direction that has been forged over the past year. The participants were also asked to actively include the voices of different societal groups within their research projects and were supported to strengthen their ability to engage with these groups and organisations.

As pointed out in the opening quote to this section, political empowerment requires enhanced collaboration, strong networks and individual competencies. In this spirit, the WPIPL programme has focused on building the capacities and confidence of women as individuals, as active members of their respective organisations and as coalitions. It sought to strengthen coalitions of women’s groups and to improve advocacy work through an action research approach to promote different avenues to political participation on issues that affect their lives. It strived for engendering stronger ownership and genuine engagement. Cross-regional cooperation and exchanges among the national groups were key and ensured through the implementation, management and supervision of the activities by the British Council MENA manager and INTRAC staff, as well as through various opportunities for exchanges, trainings and reflection. ⁶

The ‘promise’ of action research in the context of WPIPL

The term ‘action research’ denotes a family of research approaches that are highly participatory and seek to democratise the knowledge generation process. Its strength lies in its promise for ‘a participatory democratic [research] process’ and focus on devising ‘practical solutions [or ‘actions’] of pressing concern to people’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). Action research is unapologetically value-driven and interpretative, openly declaring its desire to empower and create social change for and with communities (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011). Its critique of positivist approaches underpins its view that there needs to be a shift of knowledge-power made possible by engaging a ‘consciencised’ and socially responsible community of practitioners and researchers (Chambers, 1997; Freire, 1976; Lewin, 1946), in order to co-produce knowledge that is action oriented and might include changing and improving practices, finding practical solutions to problems, or changing power relations.

PAR, as conceptualised and adopted in this study, is a methodology based on such an alternative system of knowledge production with a particular emphasis on ‘processes of collaboration and dialogue that empower, motivate, increase self-esteem and develop community solidarity’ (Reason, 1994, p. 329). As defined by Reason (1994), it is based on ‘the peoples’ roles in setting agendas, participating in data gathering and analysis, and controlling the use of outcomes’ themselves. PAR is differentiated from action research in its focus on subject participation, which aims at generating ‘locally-relevant’ knowledge capable of addressing real-life issues (Baldwin, 2012), and fostering a sense of ownership that will ensure the outcomes of the research are ‘empowering and sustaining’ (van Rooyen & Gray, 1995, p. 97).

In the context of women’s political empowerment in the Middle East region, this paper contends that PAR does indeed promise a very different way of working, a more collaborative action-oriented ethos and methodology and an opportunity for women to co-create their own context-relevant gendered knowledge and assert this knowledge as social and political reality and basis for action. In WPIPL, women from civil society organisations were engaged within their respective countries across the two cycles of PAR: (a) getting the action research designed, implemented and documented (Cycle 1), followed by (b) developing an advocacy campaign on women’s political participation (Cycle 2). The initial research team was expanded to incorporate more participants in the second cycle of advocacy planning and campaigning.

The action research cycle with its constituent steps of evaluation, action and reflection (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010) were adapted within the WPIPL programme into five core stages across the two cycles of the PAR process as illustrated in the figure above. Throughout each stage, women participating in WPIPL were immersed in the ethos and methodology characteristic of action research as described above. To begin with, Stage 1, ‘Constructing the issue’, involved a series of training workshops on action research, problem tree exercises to analyse and define root causes of issues affecting women’s political participation, followed by collective presentations and discussions to prioritise and select the research issue, which were opened up to questions and peer review by other country groups. Stages 2 and 3, ‘Planning Action’ and ‘Taking Action’, involved research design and implementation: agreeing key research questions, sub questions, sample selection, ethics and risk reduction, role division within the research team, piloting questions and data collection and management. Stage 4, ‘Evaluating Action’, involved reflecting on data, analysis, reflecting on challenges and limitations. Stage 5, ‘Reflection and Learning’, brought all country groups together as a coalition to share their experiences, their research focus, their key findings and their challenges. Collectively, they learned about each other’s realities and challenges, and exchanged lessons and advice. An intended by-product of this step was to keep the momentum and mobilise a collectively owned strategy of action. It is worth noting that reflection slots were also integrated throughout each step and not left only till the end of each cycle. Along the same lines, the second advocacy cycle tackled translating key findings into a well-thought advocacy campaign owned by all, following through each step and working in a highly participatory environment with a focus on the action that would emerge at the end. ⁷ All participants representing their respective organisations took part in each stage across both cycles. Similarly decisions were made through collective discussion, reflection and debate until consensus was reached within country groups, and later the larger coalition.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The action research cycle in the Women Participating in Public Life programme

Methodology and limitations

This paper is an outcome of a participatory reflection exercise, which aimed at gauging the extent to which PAR was understood, how it was experienced, and its outcomes on individuals, groups and the advocacy issue at hand. The carving out of moments of collective reflection is a key characteristic of the action learning cycle (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010), the primary purpose being to encourage participants to step back from ‘to-do mode’ (Smith, 2007) and critically reflect upon the methodology, process and assumptions of action research in relation to the practice. Data were collected through qualitative methods and were analysed thematically. A total of 18 semi-structured interviews with participants from five countries (female activists, members of women’s civil society organisations and volunteers) were conducted as group interviews, individual face-to-face or Skype interviews. ⁸ For a complementary institutional perspective, partner organisation heads from each country contributed with their institutional perspective on the action research approach and perceived outcomes. Key informants from the British Council and INTRAC were also interviewed. A review of the literature pertaining to the WPIPL programme ⁹ and wider literature on women’s political participation and action research methodology was also conducted.

In this way, a range of perspectives across countries was obtained enabling the research team to tease out distinct as well as recurring themes across research participants in the region- and helped inform clear trustworthy conclusions. One limitation in this study was time constraints that led to less participation from Tunisia and Egypt as compared with the other countries. ¹⁰ Furthermore, as this study was not designed to be a comparative case study, the widely diverse socio-cultural and political differentials across countries involved warrants further research for more in depth analysis of cross-contextual variations.

Findings

The findings present a snapshot of WPIPL participants’ engagements with PAR and their perceptions of its added value and inherent challenges. Three key findings are presented and discussed here, supported by anecdotes, quotes and reflections from the study.

Discussion and concluding reflections

This study has explored the potential and limits of PAR as a process to strengthen the civic and political empowerment of women in seven countries in the MENA region through the lens of the British Council’s regional WPIPL programme. The findings that emerged culminated in interesting insights into how programme stakeholders perceived and experienced PAR. They confirm a widespread support for the use of PAR as a process that strengthens advocacy work and makes it more relevant, impactful and inclusive. They also suggest that action research could be a worthwhile tool that civil society actors could continue to benefit from indicating its positive transformative effects on individuals, groups and coalitions. A number of challenges that may limit the empowering role of PAR were illuminated and discussed. In particular, the volatile political environment, with outbursts of violence and conflict, can seriously hamper PAR. So what do these findings mean? We go back to the two core questions that this paper aimed to answer.

Does PAR offer anything of value to empowerment and sustainable change among women and potentially other civil society actors in MENA?

PAR, within the context of the WPIPL, was found to be both empowering as a process as well as a tool that supported ‘empowerment outcomes’ – in this case, the advocacy outcomes (Fetterman, 1996; Zimmerman, 2000). Process and outcome are equally important and conducive to long lasting and meaningful empowerment of women in the public and political spheres in the MENA region, with eventual ripple effects into the private sphere. The skills and knowledge that women acquire through participatory collective learning inherent in PAR enables them to navigate unwelcoming political structures and influence change more effectively (Rea, 1994). Revisiting the reported outcomes that were catalysed by virtue of women’s immersion in PAR, the table below reflects upon these perceived changes at individual, group and coalition/advocacy levels (Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Evidence from PAR: levels of change and reported outcomes.

Levels of change	Reported outcomes12
Individual level (transformation at personal and professional level)	Activist as researcher is empowered as knowledge-producer Research skills acquired Evidence-base gives advocates more confidence and backing when confronting decision makers Sense of empowerment Critical thinking
Group level (transformation in cross-organisational, country-based interactions)	Different way of thinking and doing advocacy fostered Spaces for collective reflection created Stronger sense of group cohesion due to collective ownership of issue and shared analysis of root causes A shift from short-term project mentality to a focus on the long-term anticipated change Systematic approach to identify ‘real needs’
Coalition level(transformation in cross-regional dynamic around the advocacy issue)	Collaborative work ethic Increased sense of ownership Systematic approach to producing evidence as basis for advocacy actions Deeper understanding and respect for cross-regional commonalities and differences guide different actions Positive energy and sense of purpose Greater motivation in the possibility of change due to identification of ‘real needs’ and appropriate context specific remedies

PAR not only presents itself as a useful tool for supporting evidence-based advocacy that seeks positive socio-political change; it also offers a different way of thinking and being. ¹³ In the context of this programme, PAR indeed created a mode of work and space for reflection on practice not typically available in an environment that focuses on project implementation. As the evidence has shown, it also catalysed a collaborative work ethic and increased sense of ownership with its wider engagement of stakeholders in the research and in the action. By granting civil society actors a role as partners in the PAR process including selection of the research topic, data collection, analysis and advocacy plan as the outcome of the research findings, they were empowered with the right to be part of the knowledge production and decision-making processes (Baum, MacDougall & Smith, 2006). The implication of all these by-products of action research is that initiatives that strive for socio-political change are more likely to be sustainable, effective and meaningful to women and local communities.

While it is too soon to gauge the extent to which these promising outcomes will translate beyond the lifecycle of the WPIPL project, this paper argues that these initial findings are important. PAR could be particularly pertinent in the context of current narrow spaces for civic and political participation in MENA (Hammad, 2013). Previous studies have confirmed the use of PAR has served as a ‘pathway to invoke women’s agency to contest unfavourable practices and systems’ (Aziz, Shams & Khan, 2011), and it continues to be confirmed that its inherent empowering ethos and set of transformative guiding principles offer the potential to activate the role and collective impact of civil society actors and coalitions. In particular, the evidence has suggested that its application with marginalised population groups within constraining socio-cultural or political environments could nurture transformative processes at wider civil society level in the long term, beginning with the individual and group levels (Aziz, Shams & Khan, 2011). Therefore, PAR may be the avenue for instilling a culture of reflection, learning and praxis among civil society actors, their organisations and the sector as a whole, pooling efforts towards change in the MENA region.