Action Research

Understanding how action research can be practiced, taught, and learned in contemporary universities requires understanding the dominant structures that organize higher education in the 21st century. This article presents the neo-liberal and Taylorist structures affecting higher education and then places the practice and study of action research in this context to outline ways action research could contribute to an improved future for higher education.

This article attends to how claims for rigor and relevance can be met in action research (AR). High degree of relevance emanates from the focus on solving pertinent problems. Academic integrity is introduced as the issue that is essential for shaping research of high rigor from AR, and it is conceptualized as the combination of formal (substantive and methodological) research skills, strategic political capacity, and the ethical and moral stature necessary to argue and act for seeking the best possible understanding (truth). The point of departure is a discussion of the critique that has been raised of AR, and the article suggests that through a discussion of what is the essence of social science research, the solution may be found in the formation process ‘Bildung’ of action researchers. The final sections of the article introduce four factors that would support high rigor in writing scientific texts for communicating research findings: research partnering; controlling biases; standardized methods; and alternative explanations. These factors would then secure trustworthy rigorous research and proper dissertations.

As one of the oldest community–university partnership programs in the United States, the University of Illinois’s East St Louis Action Research Project (ESLARP) has evolved in an ongoing effort to balance stakeholders’ needs, broadly defined to include community partners as well as the university and its involved faculty, students, and staff. While ESLARP’s mission has remained consistent – briefly stated ‘matching needs and opportunities in the community with resources and opportunities on campus for teaching, research and service for social justice’ – what constitutes action research within this partnership has been broadly framed and has evolved due to circumstances on campus and in the community. Based on analysis of projects over the 23-year period and the personal reflections of two participants, this article seeks to reflect on the evolution through what we see as three phases – Neighborhoods First, Technical Assistance, and Engaged Research – in order to gain insights into the negotiations required to sustain a university–community partnership program. Refraining from judgment as to what model might be better, we reflect on the change in five core area: community organizing, direct assistance, popular education, mode of research, and the university’s core teaching mission. We acknowledge the different but important contributions of each phase.

Action research has an extensive history of being used to improve teaching and learning in many different professional settings, for example, schools, colleges, universities health and social care services. Educational action research embodies a process that necessitates honesty and openness and which lends itself to the betterment of one’s practice; in the current e-learning climate, where education is rapidly changing and the role and practice of the educator is evolving yet uncertain, action research has never been more valuable. This article explores and presents how social media have been used to enhance the teaching of action research and also how students gained an understanding, appreciation and an evolving experience of action research. Exploring the intricate relationships between action research, new technologies and the learning that took place during an Understanding Action Research module, this article is written from the perspective that the module team was interested in ensuring that students acquired a fully rounded understanding of action research in order to utilize it in the improvement of their own practice.

Engagement is seen as an important characteristic of action research. The term is often used to refer to the participation and involvement of the research participants. Within this article we take another angle and explore the concept of engagement in relation to the main action researcher. Using an auto-ethnographic approach, we illustrate that the involvement and ‘closeness’ of the researcher, although necessary within action research, can also have a darker side as people have the tendency to get trapped in their own beliefs and prejudices. If not mindful enough of their own involvement and way of being within the context, the researcher can lose him- or herself in the situation and no longer be able to encourage or facilitate the participation of others. We give suggestions for realizing productive engagement as a (participatory) researcher using concepts such as mindfulness and mindsight.

Can graduate students in a distance learning environment gain meaningful research experience through a virtual participatory action research project? The answer is an emphatic ‘yes.’ The purpose of this article is twofold: to demonstrate how and to what extent graduate students can gain research experience through participation with alumni and faculty in an action research project, and to examine administrative issues arising from adhering to the democratic participatory action research process under virtual constraints. Project success is determined through documents produced by participants in the Faculty-Student Mentoring Project and from two focus group evaluations held via conference calls. The data demonstrated that the students and alumni increased their research skills, used their skills and knowledge in other courses and their dissertations, presented, and published. The university gained valuable information. The democratic participatory aspect of action research and the virtual environment created administrative challenges such as scheduling and workload issues. Recommendations include: screening volunteers to determine their levels of expertise and commitment; providing time for participants to get to know each other and the technology at the outset of the project; setting expectations for participation; sharing the project management; and anticipating more time for virtual than face-to-face research.