Problems

Arguments justifying AR or PAR are often persuasive. But, is AR a problem-free research perspective? The day a research perspective becomes problem-free, it also becomes a dogma. Therefore, we must always ask the sort of question we have just asked. To answer this question, we may like to look at a number of PAR experiences, ponder over the dynamics of the process, and contemplate about the contribution of 'research' in every instance. PAR literature talks about liberating 'subjugated knowledges' (following Michel Foucault), but does not comment methodologically on the 'what' and the 'how' of either the 'subjugation' or the 'liberation'. Can 'subjugation' and 'liberation' be recognized? Further, is there a notion of accumulation in this type of research? What method allows local accumulation of knowledge, as PAR would expect to effect? Besides, if PAR involves changes in the lives of people, then is not the researcher accountable in some sense? To whom is the researcher accountable?

The role of researchers is yet another issue. Action Research seeks to give a new meaning to the notion of research, in which, one may say, what enters the research process is subject to judgment and negotiation. Further, what is done with what enters is also not pre-determined. And, perhaps, what is done with the product of the process is also subject to the forces of individual and collective will. In this, the researcher-role is potentially nebulous. It is quite likely that the person playing the role is also one of the interested parties. In this situation, can the usual sanctity of the research act be maintained? Besides, does the researcher have to be accountable to a wider scientific forum? Role dilemmas are also considered by Warmington (1980, pp. 36ff) and Rapoport (1970).