Aksjonsforskning – ansats til en historisk systematikk

Abstract

The following text attempts, without pretending completeness, to analyze approaches to action research based on where and how they position themselves socially, on how they work, and on their actual basic distinctions. The result is a tentative typology presented roughly historically, which cuts through the many labels typical of current action research. Different approaches are useful, each for different purposes. Still, most circle consciously or subconsciously around some form of “practice” which works as a standard of measurement or quality criterion. The conclusion is that there is a certain sine qua non in the field of action research, i.e. a form “toward which, ways of doing things tend to evolve from a wide variety of starting points”.

Why Should Mainstream Social Researchers Be Interested in Action Research?

“…But such arguments are not the main reasons why conventional researchers should be interested in action 1 Further arguments and references to other authors and research literature indicating what I try to argue here are to be found in e.g. Eikeland (1985Eikeland ( , 1995Eikeland ( , 1997Eikeland ( , 1998Eikeland ( , 2001Eikeland ( , 2006aEikeland ( , 2006bEikeland ( , 2006cEikeland ( , 2006dEikeland ( , 2007aEikeland ( , 2007b. Interested readers will also find my reasons for thinking that answers to almost all the challenges raised in this text can be developed by taking seriously into account the more than 2000 years old works of Aristotle, among many others, of course.…”

Educational Action Research for Being

“…Educational action research consists of a broad family of complementary research approaches, strategies and methods for understanding and developing social practices within education. Since the 1950s, variants of educational action research have been developed both as a response to changing historical, cultural, social and political circumstances and with the intent to emphasise specific aims, methods or outcomes (Eikeland, 2020;Langelotz & Olin, 2022, pp. 1-2;Reason & Bradbury, 2006, p. xxii).…”