Characteristics of Action Research

Action Research tends to be....

· Cyclical: similar steps tend to recur, in a similar sequence

· Participative: the stakeholders and informants are involved as partners, or at least active participants, in the research process

· Qualitative: it deals more with language than with numbers

· Reflective: critical reflection upon the process and outcomes are important parts of each cycle.

To achieve action, action research is responsive. It has to be able to respond to the emerging needs of the situation. It must be flexible in a way that some research methods cannot be. To increase rigor, it is usually cyclic. The early cycles are used to help decide how to conduct the later cycles. In the later cycles, the interpretations developed in the early cycles can be tested and challenged and refined. In most instances the use of qualitative information increases responsiveness. It is possible to work in natural language, which is easier for informants.

Bargal, et al, have identified six features of Action Research:

1. A cyclic process of planning, action, and evaluation;
2. A continuous feedback of the research results to all parties involved, including clients;
3. Co-operation between researchers, practitioners, and clients from the start and throughout the entire process;
4. Application of the principles that govern social life and group decision making;
5. Taking into account differences in value systems and power structures of all the parties involved in the research;
6. Using action research concurrently to solve a problem and to generate new knowledge

(Bargal, D., Gold, M., and Lewin, M. (1992). Introduction: The Heritage of Kurt Lewin. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 2.)

One crucial step in each cycle consists of critical reflection. The researcher and others involved first recollect and then critique what has already happened. The increased understanding that emerges from the critical reflection is then put to good use in designing the later steps. The cycle best known in Australia is probably that of Stephen Kemmis and his colleagues at Deakin University. The steps are:

plan Þ act Þ observeÞ reflect Þ plan

The reflection leads on to the next stage of planning. The "planning" isn't a separate and prior step; it is embedded in the action and reflection. Short, multiple cycles allow greater rigor to be achieved. As change is intended to result, effective action research depends upon the agreement and commitment of those affected by it. This is usually generated by involving them directly in the research process. In many instances, researchers try to involve them as equal partners.

Most writers on the topic state or assume that action research is cyclic, or at least spiral in structure. To put this differently, certain steps tend to recur, in more-or-less similar order, at different phases of an action research study. At the same time, or so the action researcher hopes, progress is made towards appropriate action and research outcomes.

Using a cyclic process in most circumstances enhances responsiveness. It makes sense to design the later stages of an action research activity in such a way that you capitalize on the understanding developed in the early stages.

A cyclic process is important. It gives more chances to learn from experience provided that there is real reflection on the process and on the outcomes, intended and unintended. Again, a cyclic process allows this to happen more easily. If each step is preceded by planning and followed by review, learning by researcher and stakeholder is greater. The quality of evidence can also be increased by the use of multiple sources of evidence within all or most cycles. Differences between data sources, used critically, can lead the researchers and the participants towards a deeper and more accurate understanding.

Most action research is qualitative. Sometimes a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods is used. All else being equal, numbers do offer advantages. In field settings, though, one often has to make other sacrifices to be able to use them. Most importantly, sometimes numbers are not easily applied to some features of a study. In addition, developing a suitable quantitative measure is often difficult and time-consuming. It may be more time-efficient to use qualitative data. As I mentioned before, it is also easier to be flexible and responsive to the situation if you are using qualitative methods.