Praxis – Retrieving the Roots of Action
      Research

Eikeland, Olav

doi:10.4135/9781473921290.n37

Cited by 16 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rowell et al 2016), and in directions inspired by P. Freire (Fals-Borda & Rahman 1991). The development of broad participation methods over decades in the WRI-tradition also moved it in praxis-directions, as I have discussed elsewhere (Eikeland 2012). Many different varieties of action research have appropriate times, places, and purposes (a kairós) for their applications.…”

Section: Changes In Ways Of Knowing Social Change?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there are many legitimate varieties of action research (cf. Eikeland 2012), and choices and adjustments must always be made to the requirements of the concrete situation, anything does not go, not even in action research. Then again, there are advanced challenges concerning where to start with or for novices, which in action research cannot be reduced to mere didactical teaching challenges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I relate to the table of knowledge forms in the appendix, but I will not explain it in detail since I have done so in several other publications (cf Eikeland 1997Eikeland , 2008Eikeland , 2012…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

(Why) Does Ar Need to Intervene and Change Things?

Eikeland¹

2019

IJAR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Changes In Ways Of Knowing Social Change?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

(Why) Does Ar Need to Intervene and Change Things?

Eikeland¹

2019

IJAR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To is a need to recognize the role of collaborative, active, and participative dimensions in science and learning in general in the scientific inquiry process. There is also an important need to go on reconceptualizing science as well as doing science in different ways, showing that other understandings and practices of science and ways of being scientific are worthwhile and fruitful (Eikeland, 2012). Collaborative and action research in the process of mainstreaming may opt for integration and hybridization with other research approaches, designs, and methods in many different ways in the motley tapestry of science.…”

Section: Scientific Excellence In Participatory and Action Research: mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part II. Rethinking Objectivity and Reliability

Lindhult¹

2019

TIM Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to deal with the following question: Can the concepts of reliability and objectivity be reconceptualized and reappropriated to enable understanding of scientific excellence in participatory and action research? The article shows that it is fruitful to consider the "subjective" and active role of researchers as vital in enabling scientific objectivity and reliability. As an expansion from a replication logic, reliability can be conceptualized as adaptive, goal-seeking, dynamically regulated processes enabled by effective organization of interactive and participatory learning processes where all participants can contribute to learning and correction in inquiry. Instead of erasing subjectivity, objectivity can be enabled by critical subjectivity, intersubjectivity, practical wisdom, impartial norms of inquiry, and open democratic dialogue. Reliability and objectivity in this understanding can be enabled by participatory and action research through skilful performance of research practices such as reflective conversations between parties, dialogue conferences, experimentation, and experiential learning as part of action-research cycles, etc., which are common in participatory and action research initiatives and projects. By rethinking validity, reliability, and objectivity, recognizing the substantially more active and participatory stances enables scientific excellence, it can expand the repertoire of strategies for promoting research quality, and it helps to mainstream this type of approach in the scientific community.

show abstract

“…All participants were involved in creating the design, took part in action and experiences, and were involved in analysing and drawing conclusions (Heron and Reason 2006, 145). In this way, we attempted to minimize the classical distinction between insiders enmeshed in the practical field, and outsiders whose institutional base is outside the field (Eikeland 2012).…”

Section: Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Playful reflection: an investigation into the kindergarten project ‘Play in physiotherapy with children’

Foss

Bårdsen

2013

Action Learning: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates adult learning in an action research (AR) project called 'Play in physiotherapy with children', conducted in Tromsoe Municipality, Norway, in 2010. The project's objective was to explore how a play-based intervention approach would affect professional collaboration and child development. It was designed as a small-scale project, organized around two children with motor delay and their professional teams of teachers, physiotherapists and special pedagogue in two different kindergartens. It was situated in the kindergartens, and lasted for 16 weeks. The professional participants were invited into a process of action-reflection cycles as co-researchers. Video was a core tool in the design. Treatment sessions with the children were filmed during the action phases, and were the focus of attention in the reflection meetings. The two professional teams evaluated the video-reflection meetings as crucial to their learning and change. The focus in the article is on the learning in the reflection meetings during the AR process. We discuss two aspects of the space of reflection that was created during the project. First, we look into the role of video in reflection, and discuss how this can be understood with the help of concepts from Bourdieu's 'theory of practice'. Second, we reflect on the role of play and playfulness in reflection and change among grown-ups. To do this, we use perspectives from phenomenological theory on play and playfulness from Buytendijk and Gadamer. We conclude that the use of video-reflection is a potent tool in AR processes. Concepts from Bourdieu's 'theory of practice' illuminate why, and also contribute to the understanding of the experienced change. Further, we argue that theory on play can help AR practitioners to understand the mechanisms of engagement and involvement that are crucial in AR processes.

show abstract

Praxis – Retrieving the Roots of Action Research

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

(Why) Does Ar Need to Intervene and Change Things?

(Why) Does Ar Need to Intervene and Change Things?

Scientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part II. Rethinking Objectivity and Reliability

Playful reflection: an investigation into the kindergarten project ‘Play in physiotherapy with children’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About