Action Research in a World of Positivist-Oriented Review Boards

Abstract

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) were created with positivistic research designs in mind, making the review process unsuited for most research efforts characterized as action research (AR). With the possibility that more IRBs will be created and that the definition of research will be expanded, certain types of research that falls under the umbrella of AR will be scrutinized. Specifically, the difficulty is for action research characterized by focus group or participatory research settings. The issues examined by the IRB such as voluntary participation, confidentiality, and risk to the participant are debatable for action research and need to be negotiated or perhaps reconsidered. Unless these issues are resolved, researchers may be reluctant to use this model in the future and AR will be marginalized. Recommendations are made to guide future efforts.

Action Research: Exploring Perspectives on a Philosophy of Practical Knowing

“…Such criteria are typically alien to members of ethics committees and institutional review boards who come out of the conventional positivist research tradition and expect that hypotheses, methods, and expected outcomes are well articulated in advance and that research proposals follow this format. When they are confronted with action research proposals, they are frequently at a loss as to how to understand this form of research and how to evaluate a proposal (DeTardo-Bora, 2004). Given that action research is an unfolding, emergent process that evolves through cycles of action and reflection, it is not feasible to map out a detailed anticipation of ethical issues in advance that will cover all eventualities (Morton, 1999).…”

Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design

“…Lincoln (2001) suggests that protocols are inadequate and are insufficient to meet the face-to-face, participative close work of action research. At the same time it is possible to articulate some ethical principles to guide the work of the action researcher (Detardo-Bora, 2004). The second issue follows from the first, namely that there are a number of dilemmas which arise in the course of action research which the action researcher must face and resolve in the context of each particular action research project.…”

Positioning a Feminist Supervisor in Graduate Supervision

“…One way researchers have tried to facilitate the undertaking of participatory research in the academy has been through attempts to translate some of the general principles of participatory research into evaluative contexts that operate from a competing set of values, such as human ethics review panels (e.g. DeTardo-Bora, 2004;Khanlou & Peter, 2005). The radicalismsynonymous in many participatory research circles with success-of any one culturally sensitive approach depends on the politicization of complementary theoretical tenets, particularly around notions of power, participation and possibilities for change (e.g.…”