A M Dunn (Faculty of Science)
The original paper was written and received by CSU Human Research Ethics Committee,
May 1997. This paper has been revised for the February 1998 meeting of the EHRC.
Introduction and Background to Action Research
Action Research (AR) is a research paradigm which is being adopted by a range of multidisciplinary and social science researchers. Although the term 'action research' was first used by Kurt Lewin (the famous social psychologist who coined the term 'group dynamics') over
50 years ago. Today it is becoming increasingly popular because of its facility in addressing complex problems which involve people or 'social factors'. Another feature of AR is the notion that what practitioners do as part of their work and the (theoretical) reflections on this are inextricably linked - in fact a simple cycle of: planning, acting (ie doing) and reflection
(thinking) is the standard AR model. Teaching is a classic instance of the need to use everyday work and practitioners in research to improve that situation. This is also the case in any field work which involves change or intervention with people such as community work and agricultural extension.
The AR Process and Research Context
Action Research enables researchers to develop knowledge and practice at the same time in a repeating and cyclical process. Typically, researchers follow the cycle of : plan, act, change, reflect, plan, etc. Other common (some practitioners would say essential) features of AR include the participation of clients or 'co-researchers' and the collection and analysis of qualitative data. Naturally appropriate methodologies must be used by researchers which mostly come from the social sciences involving: observation, interviewing (largely in-depth and semi-structured) and reading of documents (Patton 1990). This is also why ethics committees need to recognise qualitative methodologies and paradigms.
It is also important to recognise that particular research situations and conditions attract an action research approach, including:
1.
The need for flexibility, often because the problem is unclear.
2.
The need to include people - especially the practitioners and affected parties (or not to exclude them) in the research situation.
3.
The need to bring about change from the research activity.
4.
The fluidity of the research context meaning that precise research questions are impossible to formulate - as are structured research instruments.
The main people who use AR are practitioners who want to improve their practice (ie bring about change) as well as improving their understanding of their field (ie theory). Another use of AR emphasises activism and improvement of social condition via engagement of their clients as co-researchers. However, although many consultants (ie practitioners) would claim to do action research in the normal course of their work, for most it would be difficult to demonstrate enough reflective thought and theory development. Consultancy and AR are not the same although some common methods and research situations would be evident.

Needless to say the philosophies and rigour under-pinning AR are different and often in dispute with the more accepted paradigms derived from the scientific method (eg experimental and statistical approaches). Nor is AR the same as ethnographic methods
(observational and interview) although data collection and analysis can be similar. In the latter the action phase would not be a required outcome.
Action Research and Universities
Staff at Deakin University are prominent in the AR field, but the University of Western
Sydney (Hawkesbury) and Southern Cross also have strong research teams. Social science, education, management and health science departments would also have staff with action research interests.
For university research ethics committees the main issues from AR to consider are philosophical and methodological. Together with other new research approaches like systems approaches and grounded theory, AR proponents are well versed in scientific philosophy and the need to justify their alternative approaches, however, none would purport to replace the traditional approaches. The main points that need to be appreciated is the occurrence of increasingly complex problems of society, the environment and socio-economic circumstances of the world, and the inadequacy of traditional research methods in dealing with them.
At the methodological level AR purports to be 'scientific' in that it uses theoretical (ie rational and 'of the mind') and empirical (ie observation and 'of the senses') rigour. Results and findings are, however, not often expressed in numerical terms. They are more likely to be seen in strategies for action and descriptive understanding of the research situation.
Action Research and Human Research Ethics Committees
The following points are a sample that research ethics committees should consider:
1.
Action researchers start with ill-defined problems which become clearer in each research cycle. It is likely that an ethics committee may have to consider projects that described much about the research context and potential co-researchers but not much about specific data collection methods or theoretical frameworks. The research situation may be described as 'fuzzy', ill-defined and complex. Exploratory may also be a term used.
2.
Action researchers don't attempt to distance themselves from their research objects - in fact the often embrace interaction potential variables (including people) in the research context. Although it is not commonly seen in physical and natural science research this it is soundly based in scientific philosophies such as induction and the subjective approach - both of which are concerned with internal validity. Active interaction with the problem situation and an immersion in the data are often practised.
3.
Action Research involves clients - often called 'co-researchers'. The purpose is both as a source of discovering local knowledge as well as in promoting change and improvement of the problem situation.
4.
Qualitative data and the local relevance of research outcomes are paramount. It is less likely for action researchers to be interested in generalising their findings, although

development of methodology is often an important outcome which may be transferable to new situations.
5.
Action researchers maintain that 'the community' should be just as able to decide what is researched as the scientific community. They maintain that 'real world problems' which are more complex and always involve people. Such research questions usually reveal indiscrete variables which can only be approached by general questions (ie unstructured) which reveal local knowledge leading to understanding and local action.
Recommendations and Conclusion
The Human Research Ethics Committee should examine its ability to evaluate and approve research that:
1.
Begins with ill-defined research problems and appropriate research methods.
2.
Seeks to actively involve members of the community as co-researchers.
3.
Has as a clear goal and action plan to improve the research situation.
4.
Is committed to social change.
In summary I can assure the committee that Action Research is widespread, has a variety of methodological rigor and a sound basis in scientific philosophy. AR and similar unconventional research approaches are well established responding to the increasingly complex world and problems we face. The will pose challenges to all academic disciplines and administrative structures because they are invariably cross or inter-disciplinary.
Sources
Dick, Bob (1994) 'Action Research frequently asked questions. Electronic discussion list
'arlist', Southern Cross University.
Swepson, Pam (1994) 'Action Research: Understanding it's philosophy can improve your practice. Electronic discussion list 'arlist'. Also P Swepson, Queensland Department of
Primary Industries, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University.
Patton, Michael Quinn (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edition)
Sage Publications, London.
For more information contact the Executive Officer to the Committee:
Location
Executive Officer
Office of Academic
Email:
Governance ethics@csu.edu.au
Building C1
Phone: 02 6338
CSU
4628
Fax: 02 6338 4194
Bathurst Campus
Postal Address
Office of Academic
Governance
Charles Sturt
University
Panorama Avenue
Bathurst NSW 2795