Packham and Sriskandarajah_2005_Systemic Action Research

SystemsResearchandBehavioralScienceSyst. Res.22,119 1̂30 (2005)Publishedonline inWiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)DOI:10.1002/sres.679

& ResearchPaper

Systemic Action Research forPostgraduate Education in Agricultureand Rural Development

Roger Packham1 and Nadarajah Sriskandarajah2*1University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW, Australia2Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark

This paper discusses the theory of Systemic Action Research and its use in postgraduateresearch education, in the context of agriculture and rural development. The paperdiscusses what systems thinking is and introduces the concepts of Systemic Development.This is followed by an argument for a paradigm shift in how agriculture is viewed, and anassociated shift in education from teaching to learning. The core ideas of action researchare then described and illustrated by two case studies drawn from PhD research projectssupervised by the authors. Introducing the ideas of technical, practical, and emancipatoryaction research, the paper further expands upon these concepts of action research,illuminated by two additional PhD projects. Overall the paper demonstrates theusefulness of Systemic Action Research as the basis for postgraduate research to dealwith real contextual issues in their true complexity, and in a holistic way. In this process,genuine participation and the encouragement of diversity are seen as rights rather than asmeans to greater research efficiency, thus giving power to people to act through thegeneration of knowledge by critical reflection. Copyright# 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords systems thinking; systemic development; action research; postgraduate researchtraining; learning; participation; critical reflection

INTRODUCTION

From an early stage of the development of theSystems Agriculture programmes at Hawkes-bury, action research was identified as a valuablemethodology for implementing change througha systemic and a learning approach. Traditional

research works more on a ‘blueprint’ approach,where the problem is identified in advance, andthe process to investigate the problem is then laidout and followed. However, many of the com-plex issues facing agriculture in Australia andoverseas are not readily dealt with in this way.The problem often changes depending upon theperspective used to look at the issue, and so it isnot so much cause–effect relationships that areof prime interest, rather the improvement of

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

*Correspondence to: N. Sriskandarajah, Section for Learning andBioethics, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University,Copenhagen, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected]

situations as determined by those involved orresponsible for the situation.

In the development of the revised Hawkes-bury programmes that commenced in 1978, thisdifficulty first became apparent when workingwith undergraduate students on ‘Off-Campusexperience’ programmes, which were a compul-sory part of their studies. Students were locatedon a farm of their interest in rural New SouthWales, and then had to describe, analyse andpropose improvements to that farm by viewing itas if it were a system. The ‘problems’ emergedthrough the process of investigation and dialo-gue with the key stakeholders, and could rangefrom purely technical issues, to issues of familyfarm transfer through inheritance, to environ-mental or financial sustainability. It was notpossible to determine the problematic issuesprior to the students involving themselves withthe farming system in all its facets, and so themethodology used needed to accommodate thisconstraint; traditional scientific approaches werenot sufficient on their own.

At the postgraduate research level, Hawkesbury(then Hawkesbury College of Advanced Educa-tion) could not offer research degrees until itbecame a part of the new University of WesternSydney in 1989. Research degrees were thenimmediately offered, but the challenge for staffbecame how to provide appropriate researchtraining that reflected the ideas of Systems,Learning, and Systemic Development that hademerged from the experiences with the under-graduate programme, as well as from staffresearch and consulting projects in Australiaand overseas. Our experience with actionresearch was growing, and it was a methodologythat proved useful in research training aimed atimproving the practical situations in agricultureand rural development. In this paper, we havebrought together the conceptual developmentswhich supported the change in agriculturaleducation fostered at Hawkesbury, and alongwith it our own progress as field researchers andsupervisors. This discussion has been strength-ened by reference to four specific examples ofPhD research projects drawn from among anumber of graduate students supervised by usover the past decade and a half.

This paper commenceswith a discussion of ourview of systems, and the concept of SystemicDevelopment. This is followed by a section arguingthe need for a paradigm shift in howagriculture isviewed, resulting in a need for a parallel shift ineducation from teaching to learning, as describedin the fourth section.Our views on action researchare then presented, followed by two of the casestudies: these were two of our earliest PhDresearch projects conducted while these conceptswere unfolding, and being shaped by, and help-ing to shape, these ideas. The sixth sectionexpands on the concept of action research,drawing on the differentmodes of action researchas proposed by Grundy (1982). Two further casestudies, representing recently completed PhDstudies, are then outlined, illustrating how allthe ideas of this paper have been used in ourpostgraduate educational programmes, leadingto very useful research outcomes. A conclusionssection completes the paper.

SYSTEMS AND SYSTEMIC DEVELOPMENT

Systemic thinking requires people to look at setsof interacting activities. In the way we are talkingabout them here, systems are constructs of themind—ways of thinking about real things, notreal things in themselves. It is necessary to drawa boundary around those things that define thearea over which the system has relative control tomeet its purposes, delineating them from thesupra-system (called the system’s environment)and being made up of those things that affect thenominated system but not able to be controlledby the system. The boundary is thus a criticalconstruct that is value laden, and is one of thefundamental systemic concepts (Midgley, 2000).People wishing to improve the system in someway need to debate the purposes of the system,what would be considered to be an improve-ment, what constitutes the system and itsenvironment, and why the boundary hasincluded some things, but not others.

Systems are themselves made up of subsys-tems in a recursive way, and the choice of whathierarchical level (where hierarchy is used withan enabling rather than oppressive meaning) to

RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

Copyright � 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 22,119 1̂30 (2005)

120 Roger Packham and Nadarajah Sriskandarajah

select as one’s focus for a system of interest inthis continuous hierarchy is again open todialogue. It is not that there are definitiveanswers to these questions, since the answersare what the critical questioning community ofstakeholders decides that they are—a construc-tivist philosophy, with an emphasis on the criticalquestioning aspect. The key issue is the learningthat occurs through this dialogue. This learningmay result in progress being made simplythrough trial and error, or through systematicapplication of agricultural science, or productiv-ity considerations, or indeed through systemicmethods being followed—what is important isthat the assumptions being held by all membersof the community of concern are drawn out andunderstood—and the community of concernmust include (or at least have people speakingon their behalf) all those affected by proposedchanges (improvements) to the system (Ulrich,1983). This ensures that a participatory approachis followed.

When this approach is applied to the improve-ment of situations, such as those of agriculture,the concept of Systemic Development emerges.Here the system of focus is an organization ofsome kind, be it a farm, a commercial company, acommunity, a government or non-governmentgroup, or the like. Systemic Development is a setof ideas that promotes thinking and acting thatwill ensure the continued development of theorganization (system) through participatorylearning, with concern concentrating on the threesystemic levels: the organization as the system-in-focus; its subsystems, particularly the learningsubsystem; and the suprasystem, or immediatesystem environment. Maintaining alignmentamong all three of these levels, despite constantchange, is the goal; these ideas have beenelaborated by Bawden (1999). The (farming)system’s managers have to continually learnabout the nature of the system’s environmentand plan strategies, allocate resources andensure operations are carried out that will enablethe organization and the farming system tosurvive and flourish. This is best achievedthrough experiential learning, coupled with theindividual learners’ own insights through whatis termed inspirational learning.

A PARADIGM SHIFT FOR AGRICULTURE

Agriculture until recently has been dominated bythe paradigm of experimental science, also calledreductionist science. Such a science is based onobjectivity, seeking to predict through falsification,thereby facilitating control, with such scientificknowing locked into mathematics and numbers.The achievements of science using this approachare dazzling, and include the green revolution inagriculture, but these very achievements oftenblind us to what lies outside of this approach—what is ignored—as they are beyond traditionaldiscipline-based science. Smith (1989) refers toissues not addressed by science to include:

* intrinsic and normative values—science can tellyou what people like about issues (descrip-tive), but notwhat they should like (normative);

* purposes—the attribution of an intentionalcharacter to what happens in nature;

* global and existential meanings—what is themeaning of it all? And what are the meaningsof the problems of life?

* quality—this is a subjective experience, sonothing can convey the nature of a quality toanyone who cannot perceive it directly.

To achieve this, Smith (1989) further suggeststhat an innovative world-view needs to incorpo-rate alternative and opposite guidelines thatmove the current scientific world-view from afocus on objectivity, prediction, control and num-bers, to also include subjectivity, surprise, surrenderand words. Incorporating subjectivity wouldrecognize that it is as important to understandoneself as it is to understand one’s world and itsparts. Incorporating surprise remembers that, incomparison to what we do not know, what we doknow is very small. This is illustrated by a storySmith (1989) tells of the director of a medicalresearch team, who noted that after 30 years ofresearch, when he cut his face shaving, he stillhad no idea about what made it heal. Theincorporation of surrender would give recogni-tion to the fact that one does not enter afriendship or marriage with an intention tocontrol; surrender is to be able to give oneselfto a person, a cause or the call of conscience.Finally there is the inclusion of words, where

Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER


Systemic Action Research for Postgraduate Education 121

words are symbols, while numbers are onlysigns: signs are fine for ascending logic, but theambiguity of words is required for meaning toemerge, as in language, which is biological inthat humans are programmed to learn it.

An approach that incorporates the abovewould represent a paradigm shift in the world-view of agriculture, and how research, extensionand education activities are carried out towardslearning about and improving agriculture overdecades to come. It is very much a shift to aparticipatory and holistic (systemic) world-view,governed by a value of the common good, asdescribed by Bawden (1999). Other world-viewshe describes to make this point are illustrated inFigure 1.

An example of howworld-views will influenceagriculture can be drawn from the way risks arejudged in the field of trans-boundary transfer(between widely different organisms), handling,and use of organisms modified by geneticengineering. There is a debate between usingthe Precautionary Principle (supported by devel-oping countries and European industrializedcountries) instead of the Principle of Familiarity

(the framework supported by the USA, Australiaand Japan). The Principle of Familiarity assignsscience the role of providing risk assessment onthe intended novel traits of a given geneticallymodified organism; however, as far as unintendedchanges of such organisms are concerned, sciencehas to provide arguments to support the judge-ment that there are significant differences inthe composition of genetically engineered andnon-engineered organisms before further riskassessment has to occur. The PrecautionaryPrinciple brings science and ethics together,stating that when an activity raises threats ofharm to the environment or human healthprecautionary measures should be taken even ifsome cause-and-effect relationships are not fullyestablished scientifically. The Principle of Famil-iarity comes from a reductionist science world-view and a utilitarian value base. The precau-tionary principle is not at odds with reductionistscience—in fact it supports it—but its world-view comes from a more communal approach,valuing the common good at the expense ofprivate gain, and uses a rights-based approach tovalues.

Figure 1. Four World-views (after Bawden, 1999)




LEARNING AND RESEARCH

Research has a clear focus on learning, and aninnovation required to improve postgraduateagricultural research is a move away from afocus on teaching about agricultural research andhow to improve it, to learning with stakeholdersabout agricultural issues and how to improvethem. By this wemean amove away from a beliefthat knowledge can be ‘injected’ into others insome way, and that knowledge by itself can leadto understanding and thus improvement. Thereis a need to recognize and acknowledge the vitallearning link between finding out about agricul-tural issues and taking action to improve theseissues in some way, and that agricultural educa-tion and research should contain elements ofboth of these. The finding out and taking actionneed to go on in the actual (experiential) researchcontext that is giving rise to the issues of concern,and not be limited to simulations and experi-ments within the confines of the researchlaboratory or research station. It is from thisbasis that other issues of a more discipline-of-science kind can be addressed. The actualcontexts are always complex and messy to dealwith (not neat like the adapted questions thatexperimental science addresses), and it is herethat participatory and systemic ideas come to thefore.

Experiential learning has been described else-where (e.g. Kolb, 1984; Packham et al., 1989;Bawden, 1995), but the basis of such learning isthat it is made up of four sets of questions: Whatis there? What does it mean? What might be done?How will we do it, and how will we know when wehave done it? Thus while incorporating theoryand practice, experiential learning, like actionresearch, is more than either or both of these. Inaddition, it is our view that the learner needs firstto address these experiential learning questionsabout the issue(s) of concern; but secondly thelearner needs also to examine through criticalreflection the methods chosen to answer theseinitial questions; and then thirdly to furthercritically reflect on the assumptions held indeciding the selection of the methods used toanswer those questions—the assumptions thathelp to make meaning and that give rise to the

values we hold, underpinned by differentepistemologies and world-views (Bawden andPackham, 1993). Thus there are three levels oflearning going on in experiential learning: learn-ing, meta-learning and epistemic learning.

This linking of theorywith practice with valuesin a recursiveway is termed praxis. The key to thiseducative innovation is that praxis is grounded inreal contextual issues as themain focus and thrustof learning. As a result, the role of the researcheror educator becomes much more that of afacilitator of learning, rather than simply an expertdisseminator of knowledge. This requires differ-ent inter-personal and communication skills,from the researcher, the educator and the stake-holders. Again such issues have been describedelsewhere (e.g. Packham et al., 1989; Bawden,1992; Bawden and Packham, 1993).

Others support these ideas, particularly in thecontext of developing a more sustainable agri-culture. Pretty (1998) believes that the centralconcept of sustainable agriculture is that it mustenshrine new ways of learning about the world,and that such learningmust not be confusedwithteaching. He notes that teaching implies atransfer of knowledge and understanding fromsomeone who knows to someone who does notknow. Ison (1990) also pointed out that insituations where teaching does not include afocus on self-development to enhance the abilityto learn teaching actually threatens sustainableagriculture. Both authors note that this hasprofound implications for agricultural develop-ment, and thus for agricultural research. Thefocus has to be less on whatwe learn and more onhow we learn and with whom—with a muchgreater focus on participation. It should bestressed that participatory approaches are alsolearning approaches. Six features of learningapproaches to participatory development havebeen suggested by Pretty (1998) to be as follows:

* a defined methodology (principles for action)and a systemic learning process;

* multiple perspectives—a central objective toseek diversity, rather than characterize com-plexity in terms of average values;

* group learning processes that involve therecognition that the complexity of the world




will only be revealed through group inquiryand interaction;

* context specific;* facilitating experts and stakeholders—the role

of the ‘expert’ is best thought of as helpingpeople in their local situation to carry out theirown study and to achieve something;

* leading to sustained action—the learningprocess leads to debate about change, anddebate changes the perceptions of the actorsand their readiness to contemplate action(praxis).

Thesewill shortly be seen to be features of somemodes of action research aswell. Pretty (1998) hasnoted that two overlapping schools of thoughtand practice have evolved, one viewing partici-pation as a means to increase efficiency—whatwe would say is a utilitarian values approach,with the central notion that when people areinvolved they are more likely to agree with andsupport a new development or service. The otherview sees participation as a fundamental right—what we would call a deontological valuesapproach, in which the main aim is to initiatemobilization for collective action, empowermentand institution building. These ideas again reflectdifferent world-views, and will be seen todifferentiate modes of action research.

ACTION RESEARCH

Action research is a research paradigm explicitlyconcerned with the improvement of situationsthrough the taking of informed action and thedevelopment of relevant theory, which is thenused to guide further action (Greenwood andLevin, 1998; Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000). Theapproach has its origins in social and educationalresearch, but has also been advocated in a widevariety of domains, including agricultural devel-opment, participatory development, communitydevelopment, environmental management andorganizational development (Dash, 1999). Actionresearch is characterized by improvement andinvolvement, but it is the idea of strategic action,which is deliberate and considered action under-taken to bring about change, that distinguishesaction involved in action research from other

forms of action which may be designed to assessthe past or to find out about the present (Grundy,1982). Grundy (1982) goes on to propose that anaction research project takes as its subject mattera social practice, regarding it as a strategic actionsusceptible to improvement; the project proceedsthrough a spiral of cycles of planning, acting,observing and reflecting, each of these being self-critically implemented in an integrated way; andfinally that the project involves those responsiblefor the practice in each of the moments of theactivity, widening participation in the projectgradually to include others affected by thepractice and maintaining collaborative controlof the process. The intention of action research isto give people the power to act in order to bringabout change (action) by generating knowledgethrough rational reflection on personal experi-ence (research), so above all it is a learningprocess. The links action research has withsystemic development, as outlined above, arethus clear.

These views are supported by Flood (2001),who points out that complexity emerges in ourlives over which the human mind is no master.He goes on to state that:

In fact the human mind is both the creator andthe subject of complexity, not an externallyappointed master over it and all its parts. Thatis why it makes no sense to separate actionfrom research in our minds or in our prac-tice—so there is a need in everday living andat work to maintain a balance betweenmystery and mastery . . . It is through systemicthinking that we know of the unknowable.Where these two arcs of reasoning converge,we witness the incredible genesis of a con-ceptual universe that opens up otherwiseunimaginable ways in which people may livetheir lives in a more meaningful and fulfillingmanner.

Action research begins when the ‘research-er(s)’ join a group of people who are concernedabout improving their situation. Bawden (1991)suggests that it continues as it achieves fiveoutcomes that are placed in the context of, andare subjected to, critique from public knowledge;it is this latter point, emphasized by the fifth




outcome, that separates action research fromaction learning, such as described by Pedler(1997). The five outcomes are as follows:

* the situation of concern is improved;* the understanding (learning) by the practi-

tioners in the situation is improved;* the practice of the researcher(s) is improved;* the understanding of the research practice by

the practitioner(s) is improved;* the research process and outcomes contribute

to social knowledge, and the learning out-comes can be shared to other similar situa-tions.

TWO CASE STUDIES

When one of our early PhD candidates camefrom the Philippines on a scholarship pro-gramme, her stated interest area for a researchtopic was nutrition of goats, and she wanted toconduct trials on the nutritive value of agricul-tural by-products as feed for goats. As her mainresearch supervisors, we asked her to discusswhy she wanted to do this. Her response wasthat she wanted to improve goat production inher rural area just outside Naga City in LuzonIsland, to provide a source of food in case the ricecrop failed due to the common occurrence ofcyclone damage. Instead of accepting theassumptions associated with this proposal atface value, we adopted an action researchapproach, and asked her to check this proposedaction with the local farmers. While goat raisingwas a traditional activity in the region, it ensuedthat it had gone out of favour due to their easytheft by local insurgents living in the nearby hills(the work was started during the Marcos era). Sothe investigation changed to one consideringhow other forms of animal production (stillwithin her interest and competence area) couldassist in ensuring food security. Pigs and poultryproduction became a focus following furtherresearch activities, but it soon became evidentthat the problem was not a lack of technicalinformation on feeds and feeding as presumedby the PhD candidate, but rather the provision ofa consistent supply of good-quality feedstuffsand access to finance and markets at relevant

times, as revealed by the stakeholders throughthe iterative action researching process. Thesituation was improved by the formation of alocal cooperative by the village people, whichonly eventuated after leadership training andother capacity-building activities facilitated bythe PhD candidate (Callo, 1997; Callo andPackham, 1999).

Thus the project moved from its purelytechnological, isolated focus to an embedded,socio-technological one. It was the systemic,participatory action research process adopted inthe study that led to improvements emerging,along with the ongoing change in the issues ofconcern as the project unfolded. It could not beplanned and implemented in the traditional wayused in agricultural science research. The actionresearch methodology, underpinned with SoftSystems Methodology (Checkland and Scholes,1990), enabled deliberate strategic action toemerge that led to recognizable improvementsby the local stakeholders, but also to moregeneral improvements—these occurred throughthe learning of both the PhD candidate and hersupervisors. The PhD candidate has gone onafter graduation to teach in a university and tofoster projects that improve other local situationsusing systemic action research. The supervisorypanel was able to use the learning from thisproject to provide enhanced education andresearch in other projects of their own, and withother research students.

When a subsequent PhD candidate arrivedfrom Ghana with an initial desire to work on thenutrition of goats and sheep, he toowas given theopportunity to formulate his PhD researchproject so that it would fit his interests andenthusiasm at the same time as it addressed arelevant set of issues to do with his workenvironment back home. Having divulged hisrole as an extension officer within the Ministry ofAgriculture, he expressed an interest to inquireinto the problematique of ‘non-adoption oftechnology’ by Ghanian farmers. In what hedescribed later in his thesis as a ‘cognitivejourney’, he explored literature on the ontologi-cal and epistemological questions regardingknowledge management in the agriculturalresearch extension systems around the world,




and began questioning the validity and ethicaldefensibility of his initial idea for the project. Hetalked about his discomfort in acting as anoutside inquirer in his own community, posingand answering questions to capture the realitiesof people on whom research was to be done. Heargued that the low adoption rates of technologycould not be studied in isolation of the inter-pretations that stakeholders give to the inter-relationships within the social system.

Therefore, instead of the use of objectiveanalysis by a detached researcher wanting toexplore low adoption rates, he chose what helabelled as a participatory learning approachbased on the logic of action research, experientiallearning and critical learning systems as ‘anappropriate and legitimate way of improvingfarming and agricultural development work inthe chosen district of Ghana 1 (Amezah, 1998;Amezah et al., 1998). Farmers, researchers andextension workers, as major stakeholdersinvolved in agricultural production in the studyarea, were engaged in developing their ownmeanings about and understanding of their ownproblems, opportunities and practices; and ingenerating knowledge to enable them to takeinformed actions to improve their situations. The‘researching facilitator’ saw his roles as initiatorof the idea and facilitator of learning for theparticipants, as well as a catalyst, resourceperson and the student of participatory learning.In relation to the position he was in at thecommencement of the study, he also acknowl-edged the reorientation of the roles and respon-sibilities of the researcher and the researched,and the transformation that occurred in themthrough active engagement in the learningprocess.

MODES OF ACTION RESEARCH

Within action research, Grundy (1982) hasidentified different modes or ‘types’ of actionresearch, based on the different philosophicalstances that underpin them (epistemic learningas referred to above), and that relate to the sourceand scope of the guiding idea of the project andthe disposition that determines the type of

strategic action. One mode may predominate ina project, or two or more modes may be phases ofa project’s life, with a project beginning in onemode and then another mode predominatingduring its progress.

The first mode of action research is technicalaction research. The aim here is to achieve moreefficient or effective practice, but the ‘idea’ bywhich the outcome will be measured pre-existsin the mind of the facilitator/researcher. Thismode is product centred, so action is designed toproduce, make or create something. In this mode,the facilitator’s task is to inspire, enthuse othersand to obtain personal commitment from parti-cipants; it is desirable, but not necessary, forparticipants to be personally committed to themotivating ‘idea’.

The second mode is practical action research:while the technical mode seeks to improvepractice through the practical skills of theparticipants, in the practical mode the actionresearch seeks to improve practice through theapplication of the personal wisdom of the partici-pants. This does not mean just an intuitive senseof what is good, but rather a true and reasoneddisposition, which involves reflection uponknowledge, experience and intuition in order toperceive what is truly in the interests of thestakeholders involved. To avoid self-deception,this reflection is best done in a group with the aidof a facilitator who assists the process of self-reflection and reasoning. In this mode, a group ofsimilarly motivated colleagues can generate thepower to act either by providing a widerspectrum of ideas, or by giving an individualthe support needed to act. There are, however,areas where institutional restrictions impingeupon practice, so that the individual or group,while operating prudently and professionally toinitiate change, is powerless to do so because ofthe strength of the organizational or adminis-trative structure within which they are working.Here the emancipation of the participants from thedictates of compulsions of tradition, precedent,habit, coercion and self-deception becomes thefocus.

This is the third mode: emancipatory actionresearch. Here the development of action-orientedcritique is required, which has the three phases




of theory, enlightenment and action. The disposi-tion that motivates all stages of emancipatoryaction research is critical intent, but this isparticularly important for the first stage, thedevelopment of the theoretical perspectives thatwill inform a project. There is a dynamicrelationship between theory and practice here,with both changing and expanding during theprogress of the project, with theory informing,but not legitimating, practice. The theory will befostered by the application of personal judge-ments through reflection on it. A thoroughtheoretical foundation is not required before aperson can participate in this mode of actionresearch, but the group does need access at somestage to theory that has been subjected to the fullrigour of scientific discourse, which can in turnbe subjected to critical scrutiny by the group.Here the facilitator/researcher plays a key role,as they often have a greater theoretical back-ground and more time for contemplation thanother members of the group. The facilitator alsohas the task of ensuring unimpeded groupcommunication, which allows understanding toemerge and forms the basis from which enlight-enment will flow (Habermas, 1974). In this, thefacilitator must guard against manipulating thegroup process, particularly by ensuring thattruth and power do not reside in the facilitatoralone through them adopting an expert role: thereflective discussions of the group shouldinvolve interaction between a variety of ideasfrom group members in relation to a particularevent or situation. Generally, in emancipatoryaction research, the facilitator also accepts agreater share of responsibility for the practicalorganization of the group deliberative processes(agendas, information dissemination etc.).Unlike practical action research, group delibera-tions will encompass the social milieu in whichan event of interest occurs, and will seekenlightenment regarding that as well as theevent itself. Because enlightenment has its focusupon the past, the group also needs to deliberateon planning action that is future oriented. Whilethe facilitator can assist in the organization ofenlightenment, the responsibility for action restssolely with the actors, and the action may be bothpractical and political.

It is not in the methodology that these threemodes of action research differ, but in theunderlying assumptions and world-views ofthe participants (epistemic learning). The differ-ences in the relationship between the partici-pants and the source and scope of the guidingidea can be traced to questions of power(Grundy, 1982). In the technical mode, it is theidea that is the source of power for action, andsince the idea resides with the facilitator it is theywho control the project. In the practical mode,power is shared between a group of equalparticipants, but the emphasis is upon individualpower for action. Finally in the emancipatorymode, power resides wholly with the group, notwith the facilitator or the individuals within thegroup. It is this change in power that can cause ashift from one mode to another.

TWO FURTHER CASE STUDIES

The Profitable Pastures Project (PPP) was anindustry-funded project that aimed to improvemilk production from pasture-based farmingsystems in major dairying regions within sub-tropical New South Wales, Australia. An actionresearch methodology was employed to facilitatelocal level commitment and learning. Six regio-nal dairy groups were involved, each of whichwas entitled to biannual funding of $AUS 5000for a minimum of 3 years to support farmer-driven investigation and learning activities. Theproject coordinator was also enrolled in a PhDstudy as part of the project.

An issue identified early in the research wasthat, given the desire of the funding body to learnabout improved ways of researching dairypasture production, how far could the projectdrift from its focus on pastures—the idea as thesource of power in Grundy’s terminology asused above—if the groups decided that this wasnot the main issue? A firm adherence wouldmean adopting only a technical stance, while apractical or emancipatory approach might leadto improved lifestyle and financial returns to thefarmers (Jennings and Packham, 2000). As thework progressed, the issue of emancipatingthe farmers to take control of the decisions for




what research occurred became increasinglyimportant. Overall, through facilitation PPPsignificantly increased the role that ordinaryfarmers played within their industry’s processesof research, development and extension: PPP-supported projects enabled farmers to gain afirst-hand understanding of a wide range oftechnical issues. In doing so, PPP farmers provedtheir capacity to conduct professional learningand research activities, and have done so withina project that has increased its industry profileand established a sound reputation for meetingfarmer needs within the NSW dairy industry.However, these technical gains could not havebeen made without the accompanying practicaland emancipatory outcomes of the actionresearch process. It is suggested that the techni-cal action research was embedded in the prac-tical, and the practical embedded in theemancipatory in a systemic way. Without thefocus on all three levels, the outcomes would nothave been as rich or as beneficial. The project hasalso had the effect of changing the views of theresearch funding body, as they can now see thatit is possible to include farmers in the researchprocess in a meaningful and productive way—afurther emancipatory outcome.

While the above example occurred in a devel-oped country context, the same embeddedfeatures of technical, practical and emancipatoryaction research could be seen in the early two casestudies from the Philippines and from Ghana,and also in a fourth example with another PhDstudent from South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Here,smallholder farmers improved the productivityof their cattle-keeping enterprises through aprocess of systemic Participatory Action Research(PAR). PAR first identified the problems andneeds of the farmers, and then developedstrategies with them to meet these needs. Foddersecurity throughout the year was found to be themajor constraint to cattle production. This wasimproved by planting fodder trees as fencesaround the boundaries of homesteads and fields,as well as Napier grass in waste ground adjacentto existing crops, in unused land within thehomestead, and under existing Kapuk trees.

The production of these fodder sources repre-sented new technologies for these villagers

(technical action research), but their introductionwas adapted to local issues and needs (practicalaction research). While local extension serviceshad aimed at improving livestock productionthrough transfer of technology methods, thesehad not made any impact. The results of the PARhave been threefold: the farmers moved from asystem of tethering animals in fields to thrive onweeds, to a cut-and-carry stall-feeding systemutilizing more nutritious fodder sources; sec-ondly, they now have two or three cows, wherethey only had one before; finally, growth rates ofyoung cattle have improved from 0.3 kg/day to0.5 kg/day (Habibie, 2003; Habibie et al., 2002a,2002b). These encouraging results would nothave been achieved with traditional transfer-of-technology extension methods, as the technicaloutcomes would not have occurred without thepractical and emancipatory modes of actionresearch also being effective. As a result, thiswork is also affecting the way institutions areworking with farmers in the area to improvetheir livelihoods. In all four projects outlinedhere, a challenge for the associated widerinstitutions has been to consider changes to theway they operate, and to examine the beliefs andvalues that they hold, all of which are steps farbeyond what was conceived as achievable intraditional PhD research projects in agriculture.

These four and others of our students whohave undertaken postgraduate research in ruraland agricultural situations utilizing a systemicaction research approach fall into two types:those who are part of long-term funded projectsand are able to take some of their experiences asthesis research, and others who step into asituation primarily to conduct an action researchstudy for their thesis and step out of it at the endof the study. The latter type tends to be themajority and their interventions, while ade-quately serving the needs of a thesis andcontributing to their own competence develop-ment, are subject to the criticism, by thoseinvolved in the situation for the longer term, ofbeing less effective because of their limitations induration, area of coverage and scope. Whenthese interventions involve farming commu-nities that are disposed to looking at theintervener as an ‘expert’ bringing help and




advice, rather than as a willing co-learner andfacilitator, then the task of bringing aboutsignificant transformations becomes all the morechallenging and demanding of time. Here it isdifficult to shift the focus of power from theinitial idea brought by the researcher to a groupconcerned about issues in their local situation(technical action research), to one owned by thatgroup as well as the researcher (practical actionresearch), or indeed modified by the group tobecoming a different and more relevant idea forthemselves (emancipatory action research).Research projects that are extensive in time andspace, and which allow for more thoroughobservations, reflection and action, are emer-ging in Australian agriculture (Jennings andPackham, 2000) and these are bound to add toour experience even more. However, care needsto be taken to ensure that postgraduate studentscan complete their theses within required time-frames, and that the research elements of a PhD orresearch master degree are fulfilled.

CONCLUSION

This paper has presented a series of concepts foruse in postgraduate education, which togetherconstitute systemic action research. Their use isillustrated through four case studies. Systems arepresented here as a way of thinking about realthings (systemic), rather than being real things inthemselves (systems). Systemic action researchalso provides a framework for critical question-ing that includes all relevant stakeholders,including those who do not have the means tospeak for themselves. It represents a movebeyond experimental science, to include intrinsicand normative values, purposes, quality, andglobal and existential meanings. It is an approachthat brings science and ethics together in an overtand critical way. This supports the views ofFlood (2001) when he notes that systemic think-ing is not an approach to action research, but agrounding for action research. That is, actionresearch carried out with a systemic perspectivein mind promises to construct meaning thatresonates strongly with our experiences within aprofoundly systemic world.

This paper reinforces the view that research isalso learning, and so postgraduate educationneeds to have a learning focus, rather than ateaching one. Experiential learning is introducedas a model for the learning process, including thethree learning levels of cognitive, meta- andepistemic learning. This model is very compa-tible with action research, since experientiallearning also needs to occur in partnership withrelevant stakeholders if improvements are to besustainable.

Systemic action research issues are drawnfrom real contexts and are dealt with in theirtrue complexity, and as such they are messy, notneat like the adapted questions extracted fromsuch contexts to meet the demands of experi-mental science. The research process needs to beparticipatory in the true sense of this term, and toencourage diversity. Participation and diversityare seen here as rights rather than just means togreater research efficiency. Systemic actionresearch can be evaluated using five criteria. Italso gives power to people to act throughgenerating knowledge by critical reflection. Thethree modes of action research—technical, prac-tical and emancipatory—differ in their aims, inthe underlying assumptions of the participants(epistemic learning), and in the source andlocation of power.

These ideas have all been brought to life byfour case studies of PhD research projects. Theseprojects show how we, as well as the postgrad-uate students, learnt from what was done, andthat this kind of postgraduate education alsoresults in improvements to the contexts thestudents worked in, as well as the productionof a thesis and thereby new knowledge. All theresearchers became a part of the contexts theyworked in; they did not act only as objectiveobservers of these contexts—a real participatorylearning approach to systemic action research.

REFERENCES

Amezah A. 1998. A participative learning approach toagricultural development: a Ghanian case. PhDthesis, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury,Australia.




Amezah A, Sriskandarajah N, Bawden RJ. 1998. Parti-cipatory learning: agricultural specialists learn withfarmers in Ghana. In Proceedings of the 15th Interna-tional Symposium of the Association of Farming SystemsResearch and Extension, Vol. 2. Pretoria; 960–965.

Bawden RJ. 1991. Towards action researching systems.In Action Research for Change and Development, Zuber-Skerritt O (ed.). Griffith University Press: Brisbane;21–51.

Bawden RJ. 1992. Systems approaches to agriculturaldevelopment: the Hawkesbury experience. Agricul-tural Systems 40: 153–176.

Bawden RJ. 1995. Systemic development: a learningapproach to change. Occasional Paper #1, Centre forSystemic Development, University of WesternSydney, Richmond, NSW, Australia.

Bawden RJ. 1999. The community challenge: the learn-ing response. New Horizons in Education 99: 40–59.

Bawden RJ, Packham RG. 1993. Systems Praxis in theEducation of the Agricultural Practitioner. SystemsPractice 6: 151–162.

Callo V. 1997. Towards community development:exploring possibilities with the rural poor in thePhilippines through participatory systemic actionresearch. PhD thesis, University of Western Sydney–Hawkesbury, Australia.

Callo V, Packham RG. 1999. The use of Soft SystemsMethodology in emancipatory development. Sys-tems Research and Behavioural Science 16: 311–319.

Checkland P, Scholes J. 1990. Soft Systems Methodologyin Action. Wiley: Chichester.

Dash DP. 1999. Current debates in action research.Systemic Practice and Action Research 12: 457–492.

Flood RL. 2001. The relationship of ‘systems thinking’to action research. In Handbook of Action Research;Participative Inquiry and Practice, Reason P, BradburyH (eds). Sage: London; 133–144.

Greenwood DJ, Levin M. 1998. Introduction to ActionResearch: Social Research for Change. Sage: London.

Grundy S. 1982. Three modes of action research.Curriculum Perspectives 2: 23–34.

Habermas J. 1974. Theory and Practice, Viertel J (ed.).Heinemann: London.

Habibie H. 2003. Participatory action research toimprove the livelihood of rural people throughlivestock production in South Sulawesi, Indonesia.PhD thesis, University ofWestern Sydney, Australia.

Habibie H, Sriskandarajah N, Packham RG. 2002a.Making best use of limited resources: using partici-pative action research to achieve fodder securitywith smallholder livestock farmers in Indonesia. InProceedings of the European Branch of the InternationalFarming Systems Association (IFSA), Florence, Italy;589–600.

Habibie H, Sriskandarajah N, Packham RG. 2002b.Participative action research (PAR) for rural com-munity development in South Sulawesi, Indonesia.In Systems Theory and Practice in the Knowledge Age.Kluwer Academic/Plenum: New York; 203–210.

Ison RL. 1990. Teaching Threatens Sustainable Agricul-ture. Gatekeeper Series SA 21. IIED: London.

Jennings J, Packham RG. 2000. Action research and issuesof participation in the NSW Dairy Industry. Paperpresented at International Conference on Action Learn-ing, Action Research and Process Management, Bendigo,Victoria. http://www.ballarat.edu.au/ard/research/alarpm/docs/Job09.doc [24 February 2005].

Kemmis S, McTaggart R. 2000. Participatory actionresearch. InHandbook for Qualitative Research, DenzinNK, Lincoln YS (eds). Sage: London; 567–605.

Kolb D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as theSource of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall:Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Midgley G. 2000. Systemic Intervention: Philosophy,Methodology, and Practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum: New York.

Packham RG, Roberts R, Bawden RJ. 1989. Our facultygoes experiential. In Making Sense of ExperientialLearning, Weil S, McGill I (eds). Open UniversityPress: Milton Keynes; 129–149.

Pedler M. 1997. Interpreting action learning. InManagement Learning: Integrating Perspectives inTheory and Practice, Burgoyne J, Reynolds M (eds).Sage: London; 248–264.

Pretty J. 1998. Participatory learning for integrated farm-ing. In Proceedings of the Internet Conference onIntegrated Bio-Systems, Eng-Leong Foo, Senta TD(eds). Institute of Advanced Studies, UN University.http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/jules/paper.htm_ [24 February 2005].

Smith H. 1989. Beyond the Post-Modern Mind (2nd edn).Quest Books: Wheaton, IL.

Ulrich W. 1983. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning.Haupt: Bern.




Packham and Sriskandarajah_2005_Systemic Action Research

Documents

Transcript of Packham and Sriskandarajah_2005_Systemic Action Research