No abstract

No abstract

This chapter follows some main currents in philosophical and methodological developments, mainly through the 20th century. These developments emanate from a critical renewal of central aspects of Aristotelian philosophy, justifying but also requiring a praxis-based and immanently critical form of action research, and a reconfiguration of the organizational and institutional relations between research, practice and learning.

One of the basic and for many, defining tenets of action research is contained in the “slogan” ascribed to Kurt Lewin: “In order to understand it, you have to change it”. The slogan clearly resembles what Francis Bacon claimed for experimental science, however, and also Karl Marx’ well known stance in his Feuerbach-theses. In this text I discuss this “change imperative” and relate it to its “pre-history” before action research. Most action researchers are not willing to subscribe to terms like “social engineering” but still call what they do for “interventions”. The text argues that what most people spontaneously think of as “change” may not be necessary for calling what is done for action research. Yet, the alternative is not to withdraw to a disengaged, spectator position. The change imperative raises important questions about what kind of change action research initiates, and what kind of knowledge results from different forms of change. The text challenges the “slogan” as to what kind of change is appropriate and legitimate in working with changes in individuals, culture, communities, and organisations, and suggests ways forward through developing forms of practitioner research and native or indigenous research. To illustrate, insights from Aristotle and Hegel are invoked. Action researchers are challenged to discuss and clarify answers to questions about what kind of change is produced, and what kind of knowledge is generated.

Striding across the battlefield, Liberty holds the banner of freedom aloft, rallying the people and leading them to ultimate victory over their oppressors. Delacroix' famous painting seems to capture the sense of purpose and dedication of action research. But purpose and dedication have the nasty habit of turning into selfrighteousness and an unquestioning conviction that one's actions are morally superior and beyond reproach. Liberty seems not to see the burning buildings behind her nor the many dead bodies lying at her feet! Action research takes many different forms, draws on a variety of theoretical frameworks for inspiration, and builds on the work of researchers from a broad range of different disciplinary backgrounds, but in general we do seem to articulate a shared set of values. Reflecting these values, Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, the editors of this journal and of the Handbook of Action Research, define the practice as, 'a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes' (2001, p. 1). But, as Boser points out (p. 14), 'democratic intentions do not obviate the need for thoughtful examination of the ethical implications' of our research. It is with this intention that this special issue devoted to a critical examination of ethics and action research has been developed. The articles included in this special issue reflect some of the many ethical issues action researchers must address if, as a community of scholars/practitioners, we are to live up to this shared set of values. We begin with two articles that provide theoretical and philosophical frameworks for this examination of ethics. Susan Boser suggests in the introduction to her work that, 'this movement toward participatory research brings new sets of social relations for research and, as such, presents a new set of ethical challenges' (p. 9). She explores this new set of ethical challenges paying particular attention to the importance of maintaining a focus on issues of power and calls upon us to consider how these relations of power might influence practice. These are critical questions which are examined within specific research settings in the two exemplars included in this issue. Drawing on her own work in the field of industrial democracy and focusing on the issue of age discrimination, Anne Inga Hilsen discusses issues of power by examining them within the context of human relationships. Hilsen suggests that we understand the practice of action research as a covenant between the researcher and the other