participation in action research.full

http://arj.sagepub.com/

Action Research

http://arj.sagepub.com/content/7/3/263The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1476750309336718

2009 7: 263Action ResearchDaniella Arieli, Victor J. Friedman and Kamil Agbaria

The paradox of participation in action research

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Action ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://arj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://arj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://arj.sagepub.com/content/7/3/263.refs.htmlCitations:

at Vytautas Magnus University on September 24, 2010arj.sagepub.comDownloaded from


http://arj.sagepub.com/content/7/3/263

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://arj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://arj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://arj.sagepub.com/content/7/3/263.refs.html


The paradox of participation in

action research

Daniella Arieli and Victor J. FriedmanMax Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel, Israel

Kamil AgbariaNebras, Um El-Fahum, Israel

A B S T R A C T

Although participation is widely discussed in the action research literature, relatively few studies deal with building the participa-tive relationship itself. This article attempts to fill that gap through a ‘first-person action research’ involving a relationship between Jewish researchers and a Palestinian Arab non-governmental organization in Israel that failed to live up to our espoused values of participation. It employs an action science method for joint critical reflecting on this relationship and analyzing the data from the reflection. It presents two ‘theories of action’: one aimed at explaining the paradox of participation and one for dealing with it more effectively. By opening our learning, including our errors, to the scrutiny of other action researchers, we hope to generate actionable knowledge that can contribute to building genuinely participative relationships in action research.

Action Research

Volume 7(3): 263–290Copyright© 2009 SAGE PublicationsLos Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DCwww.sagepublications.comDOI: 10.1177/1476750309336718

a r t i C l e

K E y w O R D S

• action science

• conflict

• Israel-Palestinian

• participatory action

research

• reflection

263



Action Research 7(3) 264 •

This article investigates potential stumbling blocks on the path to building partici-pative relationships in action research. Although participation is widely discussed in the action research literature, relatively few studies deal with building the par-ticipative relationship itself. Our study is based on a critical reflection on practice involving action researchers from an academic institution and members of an Arab-Palestinian non-governmental organization (Nebras) in Israel that failed to live up to our espoused values of participation. Two of the authors of this article are professional researchers and the third is the director of Nebras. As a form of ‘first-person action research’, this article reports on our own learning, but it also points to paradoxes of participation that may be faced by all action researchers.

The article begins with a discussion of the concept of participation, its application in different forms of action research, and a review of the relatively few studies that look at problems in the process of forming participation. We then present a case study and analysis of our attempt to build a partnership. In the discussion section we build on our findings, as well as the literature, to pres-ent a ‘theory’ that explains the paradox of participation and how to deal with it more effectively. By opening our learning, including our errors, to the scrutiny of other action researchers, we hope to contribute actionable knowledge to building genuinely participative relationships in action research.

Participation in action research

According to Reason and Bradbury (2001), participation is the defining char-acteristic of action research. The centrality of participation in action research is based on a view of the world that consists ‘not of things but of relationships which we co-author’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 9). Thus, action research can be seen as involving a particular kind of interpersonal relationship that blurs boundaries between traditional roles of researchers and the researched.

The role of participation has been expounded most fully in participatory action research (PAR), which typically refers to this relationship as the meet-ing of two groups – ‘researchers’ on the one hand and ‘the community’ or ‘the people’ on the other (Hall, 2001; Park, 2001). PAR is based on the belief that the oppressed and relatively powerless can be empowered by helping them become aware their own resources, by increasing their problem solving capacity, and by becoming more self-reliant and less dependent (Fals Borda, 2001; Fine & Torre, 2006; Kelly, Mock, & Tandon, 2001; Park, 2001; Swantz, Ndedya, & Saiddy Msaiganah, 2001). Participation is also central to other action research methods, such as ‘co-operative inquiry’ (CI), which talks of research ‘with’ people rather than ‘on’ or ‘for’ them, involving all participants as co-inquirers (Heron & Reason, 2001). ‘Action science’ refers to creating a ‘community of inquiry within commu-nities of practice’ involving both researchers and practitioners (Friedman, 2001).


Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight


Arieli et al. The paradox of participation in action research • 265

‘Practitioner-research engagement’ (PRE) is a process in which members from these two groups come together to draw on each other’s knowledge in order solve complex problems and generate mutual learning (Brown, Bammer, Batliwala, & Kunreuther, 2003).

The participatory action research relationship has both a functional and a political element. On the one hand, it implies that ordinary people can and should be active participants in the entire action research process, carrying out functions and activities that have often been reserved for researchers. On the other hand, it is fundamentally a democratic relationship in which both sides exercise power and shared control over decision-making as well as interpretation. Within this framework, researchers act as committed facilitators, participants, and learners rather than distanced, neutral observers, analysts, or manipulators. Because rela-tionships constitute an integral part of action research, their nature and quality are critical to both the process and outcomes of action research (Brown et al., 2003; Reason & Bradbury, 2001).

Most of the studies reviewed for this article described the initiation and formation of these relationships in a few sentences or by telling a short story or narrative (e.g. Baghar, 2007; Collins, 2005; Fine & Torre, 2006; Iversen, Ellertsen, Joacobsen, Raheim, & Knivsberg, 2006; Lykes, 2001; Pyrch & Castillo, 2001; Reed, Tom, & Frisby, 2006; Swantz et al., 2001). While some of these stories do report on the need to overcome distrust, very few data are provided about the relationship building process. Almost all of these stories of initiation and relationship are written at an abstract level with little detailed description or direct quotes. Furthermore, they are all told from the researchers’ perspective. The voices of community members and practitioners are rarely heard when it comes to the relationship itself, how they perceived the researchers, and what they expected to get from it.

A few studies have taken a critical look at participative relationships and the difficult challenges that arise in building them. In a participatory action research project involving sex workers in Cambodia, Busza (2004) found that the project was able to achieve only a low level of participation, despite ambitious inten-tions. She attributed the problem to constraints imposed by the context, making it difficult for the sex workers to achieve sustained participation. However, she also pointed to contradictions between the interests and needs of the researchers, as defined by funders and the researchers, and the interests and needs of the sex workers as they themselves perceived them. Ospina et al. (2004) described tensions around authority, trust, cohesion, and power in a co-research group involving community leaders and academic action researchers. They identified ‘paradoxes of participation’, and concluded that ‘we have learned that a mutual inquiry space requires a very honest conversation about roles, tasks, boundaries, authority, and power in the context of each particular project and as relationships is being built’ (Ospina et al., 2004, p. 66). The goal of this study is to delve more


Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight



deeply both into the paradoxes of participation and ways of creating the ‘mutual inquiry space’ and ‘honest conversation’.

situating ourselves

Two of the authors of this article, Daniella and Victor, are faculty members at Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel (Jezreel Valley), a public institu-tion that serves approximately 5000 students in Israel’s northern ‘periphery’. In Israel, the term ‘periphery’ denotes both geographic and socioeconomic margin-ality relative to the population centres on Israel’s coastal plain (Avnimelech & Tamir, 2002). The northern periphery is also home to the largest concentration of Palestinian Arabs who remained in the State of Israel after it received indepen-dence in 1948. These Palestinian Arabs are citizens of Israel, as opposed to the Palestinians who live in the Occupied Territories (West Bank and Gaza). About 20 percent of the students at the College are Arab, roughly proportional to the percentage of Arab citizens of Israel.

The numbers of Jewish and Arab populations in the region are roughly equal. They live in a variety of urban and rural, but mostly separate, communi-ties. Both populations experience economic and social exclusion relative to Israel’s centre, but Arabs experience higher levels of poverty, unemployment, inequal-ity and discrimination (Rinawie-Zoabi, 2006). ‘Development’ in this region has frequently involved the expropriation of Palestinian Arab lands for the purpose of establishing Jewish communities and a Jewish majority. Although Jews and Arabs constantly interact in an atmosphere of superficial cordiality, there are tensions and suspicions stemming from the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict as well as inequalities between Jews and Arabs in Israel (Bar-Tal & Teichman, 2005).

Kamil, the third author, is the director of ‘Nebras’ (‘Lamp’), a civil society organization in Um El-Fahum, Israel’s second largest Arab city. Um El-Fahum numbers over 40,000 inhabitants, all of whom are Muslims and 58 percent of whom are under the age of 21. Um El-Fahum’s economy is founded largely on unskilled or semi-skilled labor, traditionally in the building trades, but it is also a centre for commerce and has a sizeable number of professionals, merchants, intel-lectuals, and artists. As with most Arab communities in Israel, there is a high level of unemployment and poverty in Um El-Fahum. The local government is domi-nated by the Islamic Movement, a legal political party in Israel. Perhaps for that reason, Um El-Fahum is regarded by many Jewish Israelis as a hotbed of hostility. Nebras was established in 2004 by a group of citizens from Um El-Fahum who organized in order to promote ‘communal consensus and civil society’ as well as ‘inclusion, equality, pluralism, tolerance, and initiative’.1 One of the main goals of Nebras was to overcome the stigma against Um El-Fahum by sponsoring meet-ings between Jews and local residents.




Daniella is a cultural anthropologist and adjunct College faculty member. Her field of research is intercultural encounters and she had a strong desire to do something to improve Arab–Jewish relations in Israel. Victor is an organi-zational psychologist and full-time faculty member at the College, with over 20 years of experience in action research. He is also a co-founder of the Action Research Centre for Social Justice (ARC), an effort aimed at promoting commu-nity-academic partnerships in the region around the College. Kamil is a native of Um El-Fahum and founded Nebras after retiring from his job as director of local branch of Israel’s largest health maintenance organization. He is continually on the lookout for opportunities to build relationships between inhabitants of Um El-Fahum and Jewish groups

Daniella had a brief acquaintance with Kamil and knew of his interest in promoting Arab–Jewish cooperation. She arranged a meeting to bring Victor and Kamil together in order to explore the possibility of collaborating on an action research project in Um El-Fahum. At this initial meeting Victor framed the col-laboration as an action research project along the lines of collaborative inquiry (Heron & Reason, 2001). He envisioned bringing together a group of researchers from the College and community members from Um El-Fahum who would define an issue of mutual interest, study it together, and then put the new knowledge into action through some kind of project. Daniella had no prior experience as an action researcher, but she believed strongly in participation as well as in the importance of documenting the encounter with Nebras as a way of generating knowledge about intercultural relations. Kamil saw the relationship with Victor and Daniella as an opportunity to achieve goals of Nebras and do something to benefit Um El-Fahum.

The relationship between the action researchers and Nebras lasted for over two years and involved over 40 formal meetings and other interactions in which over thirty people from the Action Research Centre (ARC) and Nebras partici-pated in one way or another. These meetings included a field visit to both Um El-Fahum and the College involving about 10 participants from each group and visits to Um El-Fahum by potential donors. There was also a joint goal-setting process and working sessions aimed at developing joint projects. The two sides jointly wrote grant proposals and conducted a research project on higher edu-cation for women together with students from the College. They made a joint presentation at the annual meeting of the Israel Sociological Association, pre-pared a poster presentation at the College’s annual research fair, and held a num-ber of social visits. The relationship led to the establishment of one sustained project in public health education that still continues at the time of this writing. Nevertheless, after two years, both the researchers and the community members felt that the relationship had not really developed as they had hoped.




Method

The following case study and analysis attempts to identity what went wrong in the partnership and why. It constitutes a form of first-person action research carried out by the authors on their actions, based on two sets of data. The first set of data includes protocols from all of the meetings and events, which were carefully documented by the action researchers, usually by hand in a notebook or directly onto a laptop. The second set of data consists of protocols from a system-atic process of reflection, carried out by the three authors about two years after the initiation of the partnership. This reflection process began with Daniella and Victor reviewing all of the documentation of the first two years of the partnership and summarizing it into a 50-page account of what had happened. Then Daniella, Victor, Kamil and Ahmad Kiwan, another leader of Nebras, read through this text together in order to reflect on what had taken place so far. We held six reflec-tions sessions, totaling about 20 hours, though Ahmad participated in only two of them.

As we read through the text, the two researchers first tested with their com-munity counterparts whether it was an accurate account of what had been said and done. Each member of the group was free to stop at any point and inquire more deeply into their own, and each other’s, thoughts, feelings, and assumptions (the ‘left-hand column’). The inquiry was guided by an action science method, using ‘theories in action’ as the main conceptual tool for guiding both the inquiry and the analysis (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Friedman, 2001; Friedman & Rogers, 2008; Rudolph, Taylor, & Foldy, 2001). This inquiry process raised questions such as: what were we each experiencing at the moment? What led us to speak or act in particular ways? What did we want to happen? How did we perceive each other? When the group encountered differences in our interpre-tations of the situation and our actions, we engaged in processes of inquiry in order to understand each other and bridge the gaps. These reflection sessions were recorded by Rania Pharyra, an Arab student at the College.

At the next stage, these two sets of data (the 50-page account and the reflec-tion protocols) were analyzed by Daniella and Victor in order to identify what led things to go wrong. Daniella and Victor then wrote the first draft of this article in Hebrew and gave it to Kamil and Ahmad for review, comments, and revisions. Victor and Kamil then met together to discuss Kamil’s comments and how they should be incorporated into the article, the final version of which was sent back to Kamil for final authorization and later translated to English.

One of the difficulties in writing the article, as first-person action research involving multiple actors, was deciding how to talk about ourselves. In order to facilitate the ease of reading, most of the case study and analysis are written in the third person. However, at various points we shift into the first person.


Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight



Case study

Following a brief initial meeting, the first meeting between members of the Action Research Centre and Nebras took place in the Nebras office in Um El-Fahum and involved six members of Nebras and four researchers from the College. After all of the participants introduced themselves, Kamil welcomed the guests and briefly described the goals of Nebras. He dedicated most of his talk to expressing his concern about the youth of the community, saying:

We want to expose our youth to a new world, to modernization, to cultural opportu-nities . . . We want them to appreciate others and to experience joy in life. In order to know what to do for them and what to give them, we want to research their desires on an academic level. We want to study everything that is connected to the world of the youngsters, to build a survey together, after which we will know what problem to deal with and which project we should develop.

After Kamil, Victor described the goals of the Action Research Centre and said to the members of Nebras:

This meeting is an opportunity to listen to what is important to you and to think together how to strengthen the relationship between us so that each side can meet its needs.

Reading the protocol to the end of this meeting revealed that not a single par-ticipant responded in any way to Kamil’s suggestion about conducting a survey among the youth of the Um El-Fahum. When this lack of response became appar-ent in the reflection process, we each said what we thought at the time, whether we were aware of ignoring Kamil’s suggestion, and what our original response to the suggestion had been.

Victor: At the time I thought that the idea of doing a survey wasn’t a good idea, but I wasn’t aware of the fact that I didn’t respond. Kamil, were you aware that I did not respond to your suggestion? (Kamil answered that he was aware) . . . I think that somehow I was afraid to say that I don’t think it’s a good idea . . . At that point, we were still not close enough and I didn’t want to say something out of fear that it might insult Kamil. Kamil, why didn’t you say something at that time?

Kamil: If I had been Victor, I would have said ‘That’s an idea to take into account and we will discuss in greater detail later,’ but to ignore it and to take it so lightly . . . That kind of group dynamic wasn’t foreign to me. The truth is that I have known all kinds of Jews, like managers of big institutions etc., who just want to talk and don’t listen to the ideas of their partners. It seems to be the kind of thinking belonging to the group whose aim is to lead . . . Also I was waiting for the next opportunity.

Daniella: When Kamil said that we should do a survey, it made a lot of sense to me. I was impressed that Kamil came to the meeting ready with a page of data. However, I was also aware that Victor and Sarah (another experienced researcher at the meet-ing) ignored the suggestion. I told myself that they understand more than I do, so I




kept my mouth shut. I was aware of the fact that they ignored Kamil’s suggestion and it embarrassed me. I was afraid that the cooperation would blow up . . . Kamil how did you feel?

Kamil: It was simply that the mentality in Arab society prevented me from saying it directly. When someone comes as a guest to my house, for example, a guest can say anything he wants because he is a guest in my house.

These excerpts raise doubts about whether the relationship we were form-ing was truly participative. Reflecting on Victor’s actions, we saw that he ignored ideas that did not seem right to him and moved the discussion in the direction he believed in. When asked what led him to act in this way, he said that his actions were not intentional – he had not been aware of ignoring of Kamil’s ideas. In addition, he perceived the situation as a meeting between people who were still unfamiliar with each other, a situation governed by politeness and avoidance of open conflict, so he did not feel confident enough to directly express his thoughts, and acted to avoid direct confrontation and embarrassing the other side. This strategy was effective in the sense that the discussion moved away from the sug-gestion that seemed inappropriate to him. However, this strategy was completely contradictory to Victor’s espoused values of participation.

Kamil experienced this event as a meeting among people who were not equals, and his awareness of these power relationships – which were not dis-cussed at that time – governed much of his strategy. He experienced the College researchers as people who know how to do research and surveys, which he con-sidered to be essential for Um El-Fahum. At the same time, he experienced feeling ignored and interpreted this as another expression of the familiar tendency of Jewish functionaries not to listen to Arabs.

Kamil perceived his role as mobilizing the College researchers, whom he saw as people with valuable resources. At the same time he did not see any sense in openly insisting on his idea with them. Rather he adapted himself to their sug-gestions in order to benefit from the advantages of being connected with them. Kamil believed that, if he would be patient, he would find ideas that the College researchers would be willing to adopt in order to realize, at least in part, his aspirations for change. His strategy was to suggest ideas for action, based on his perception of what academics do, and hope that his ideas would be adopted. When his ideas were ignored, his strategy was to ignore being ignored and to continue with the conversation. The result of this strategy was that many of the things that were important to Kamil did not get done.

Daniella’s perception of the situation was also one of inequality. She believed that the people higher up in the academic hierarchy had more knowledge about how to build this kind of relationship and move it into action. She felt that she should wait for them to lead the way. Her implicit goal was to keep the relation-ship going. Her action strategy was to prevent conflict that could destroy the




relationship. She wanted to prevent parties from losing interest and pulling out. She was aware that her colleagues had ignored Kamil, but she did not point this out to them. Rather than pushing to define clear goals, she aimed at leaving the agenda of the partnership ambiguous enough to speak to all the parties’ aspira-tions. The result was that the relationship continued, but, as will be seen, it also led to an ever increasing level of frustration among the parties. Neither at this initial point nor at any point during the next two years did they directly confront these conflicts nor clarify the terms of the partnership that was taking shape.

During this first meeting, Nebras members suggested conducting a field visit to Um El-Fahum for the Action Research Centre and the researchers agreed. The goal of the field visit was defined by all of the participants in the meeting as emphasizing the positive aspects of Um El-Fahum and not just its problems. The next steps involved a number of meetings between Daniella and Kamil for the purpose of preparing a program for the visit, which took place in June 2005 and involved ten guests from the Action Research Center and ten members of Nebras. The participants found the field visit interesting and raised suggestions for next steps.

The visit also met one of Kamil’s central goals, which was organizing activi-ties that would change the negative stigma about Um El-Fahum in Israeli public opinion. As Kamil said in the summary session of the visit:

If we conduct visits for Jewish students from the College, we will strengthen the College and change stereotypes about the Arabs in Um El-Fahum.

However, more such visits did not occur. In the reflection session, Kamil expressed his disappointment that this did not happen, saying to Victor:

Our initial thought was that this visit would be the calling card that would serve to stimulate more visits (from the College) with the overarching interest here in encour-aging higher education in Um El-Fahum.

In fact, here arose another hidden conflict about the meaning and utility of visits aimed at getting Jews and Arabs to meet each other, and the role of such visits in the relationship between Nebras and the College. Victor refrained from fol-lowing up on Kamil’s call for more visits because he doubted the effectiveness of short-term social meetings, which leave the overall social, economic, and political situation unchanged. Instead, Victor thought the partners ‘had to find a concrete project in El-Fahum’. In order to do so, he advocated ‘action evaluation’ or ‘C-3’ (Friedman, Rothman, & Withers, 2006), – a structured process of defining mutual goals and an action plan for the partnership.

Victor’s skepticism about mutual visits implicitly rejected one of the Kamil’s main strategies for overcoming negative stigma towards Um El-Fahum and Arabs in general, and one of Kamil’s main strategies in conducting relationships with the Jewish sector. In this case, Victor was aware of ignoring Kamil’s idea. His actions




were driven by a clear idea of the process necessary for laying the foundation for a productive, long-term partnership.

Our data show that in all of our meetings during that period of time Victor explained repeatedly the rationale and the procedure of the action evaluation process, for example by saying:

Victor: It’s important from the beginning to engage in dialogue about what each party really wants and how to build a project that will produce the results that we really want to achieve.

We also realized, during the reflection sessions, that each time Victor asked for support from the others he hardly met any explicit resistance, although none of the other participants shared his conviction that such a process was necessary. Rather, they support Victor’s suggestion. For example, Ahmad said:

Even from a psychological standpoint, it is important that we have an influence on every component of the project. I agree with that approach.

Daniella thought that the process Victor suggested would take too much time, but she still voiced support:

Daniella: I agree too. It might be at the expense of immediate concrete action, but the process is more important.

Reading the protocols we realized, though, that although Kamil never directly objected to Victor suggestions, he did express reservations. Again and again he tried to push the discussion in ‘practical’ terms, suggesting ideas for action:

Kamil: I think we need to focus. Beautiful dreams are the result of thinking that focuses on an issue. The issue that we need to focus on for social mobility is to increase the number of students who received higher education in our community. We can go to people who finished 12th grade . . . on the other hand we can approach high school juniors . . .

Victor’s reaction in this kind of discussion was to bring it back to thinking about the right process.

Victor: I’d like to take a step back to the level of values because so far we have not really talked about the meaning of ‘action research’. Regarding the things you men-tioned, I do not understand the problems or even know what they really are. I would like to think of a research process in which all of these stakeholders participate, in which everyone researches themselves.

In this interchange, neither Kamil nor Victor responded directly to each other’s suggestion, but continued to stress the need for doing what each of them thought was right.

Only in the reflection sessions did we realize that there had been an under-lying conflict between us. The conflict stemmed from the fact that Kamil, both




personally and as a representative of the dominant view among the members of Nebras, was not really convinced of the necessity of the action research approach. Moreover, we became aware that we were caught in a ‘paradox of participation’: Victor, as the action researcher, was trying to convince Kamil, as a community partner, to take the role of a researcher, while Kamil really did not see the need for taking it. What Kamil wanted most was for the College researchers to do something that would have a concrete impact. Kamil saw his goals as urgent, so that making rapid progress with research and concrete projects were extremely important values. What Kamil wanted was for ‘things to happen’ and he did not care for any particular process. But, from the College members’ responses, he understood that the College ‘has its traditions and ways of doing things’ so he decided to cooperate. In Kamil words:

It doesn’t seem to me that there is a need to begin to ask who should be the researchers, how the findings will be achieved, etc. – all of those questions can be answered by the College. I want your knowledge of how to conduct research because those are the tools that we don’t have . . .

The paradox comes from the fact that Victor perceived Nebras as a partner in conducting action research – an activity that he believed held high potential for making a more meaningful and important contribution to the community. In effect, he was imposing his concept of participation upon his partners. In retro-spect, he realized that he was acting in complete contradiction to the participa-tory values he believed in and espoused.

Kamil expressed verbal support when Victor asked for it, but repeatedly presented the ideas that seemed most appropriate to him. He never managed to satisfy his desire for action and felt we were going around in circles. Kamil invested a lot of time as well as his own personal prestige in this project. The members of Nebras followed his lead and when nothing concrete seemed to materialize, they expressed disappointment and began to distance themselves from the project. Daniella took on the role of the mediator and, in doing so, conceded a leadership role and, to a certain extent her own judgment. Daniella’s strategy was to agree with both sides and to explain to each side the other’s position, so as to prevent confrontation and a cutting off of relations. Her strategy was effective in the sense that the relationship continued to exist. The unintended consequence was contributing to the mutual blindness that characterized the entire process.

Under these circumstances, in the spring of 2006 Nebras and the College researchers began a process of action evaluation, in order to set program goals and create an action plan. This process was interrupted by the outbreak of Israel’s war with Lebanon in July 2006, which disrupted life in the entire region. During the war, Daniella and Victor met with Kamil, Ahmad, and the two Palestinian Arab facilitators of the action evaluation process, to discuss whether and how to continue with the partnership in light of the extremely tense relations between




Jews and Arabs. It was only in the fall of 2006 that a wider group of Nebras members and College faculty finally met together and came up with their com-mon goals for the partnership.

The goals that we set were very general, more or less the same things that had been said from the very beginning of the partnership. In the process of reflec-tion, it became clear that the goal-setting process and many of the meetings so far had been ‘ritualistic’, which led everyone to begin expressing their frustration. Ahmad expressed his frustration as follows:

Ahmad: In my opinion, the ritualism was what characterized the meetings here and at the College. There’s nothing wrong with rituals when dealing with guests, but until now we have not put together a real plan . . . Six months ago, we said to our people, let’s go visit the College. Now if we ask them again, they’ll say ‘Again, you’re jerking us around?!’ . . . I think the College wants to receive but not give. When the College goes to do research on a project they set goals, determine who leads, and they give funding. Without funding, it won’t work . . . Everyone who is concerned that things should go differently here should fund and help. It should be not that Kamil and Ahmad always pay out of their own pockets.

Victor said he was frustrated too. He wanted to raise funds for the project but could not do so without a serious proposal, which required a process of thinking and planning together – rather than running to action.

At this point in the reflection process, we began talking directly, for the first time really, about the political, economic, and institutional context of our attempt at partnership – raising strong emotions in each of the participants.

Daniella: I think that, perhaps, part of the problem was that we thought that the project is important for Um El-Fahum but not really important for the College . . . There was a feeling as if the Arabs in Um El-Fahum are demanding that the Jews in the College do something for the progress of the Arabs. I think that many Jews in the country don’t like that approach and are not willing to take responsibility. Maybe even academics don’t want to recognize the fact that there are gaps here and that they have to take responsibility for it.

Kamil: We are talking about the issue of the Arabs as if we don’t know the reality of the situation. Victor and people like him at the College know the situation well enough . . . So why not push for us? The College can organize, help, guide, and show ways forward. The College can come down from its ‘ivory tower’.

These criticisms angered both Victor and Daniella who responded by voicing their disappointment in the lack of commitment and initiative by members of Nebras. Daniella expressed her frustration that, when they had started a concrete project, Kamil did not take the initiative and did not push things forward:

I want you to call me and ask ‘So, what’s happening?’ I try to set up meetings but don’t succeed – and even you don’t return my calls.




Kamil responded by saying that people ceased taking initiative because they had lost faith in the researchers, who represented the establishment in their eyes:

Everyone says, ‘Leave it, nothing is going to change. The Jews will stay Jews. They won’t do a thing.’ If you invite people to a meeting they will come. But if they don’t discover some real interest, then they disappear. They don’t feel committed.

This heated interchange marked a shift in our relationship. Throughout the reflection process, we had gradually unraveled how our thinking and behaving had led to an outcome with which we were all dissatisfied. However, at this point, we began to more freely express feelings and attributions, both about each other and about the influence of the wider political and socioeconomic context on our relationship. Bringing these issues to the surface was a difficult, but liberating and exciting moment. As Ahmad put it:

The very fact that we are analyzing how we acted and how should act is not some-thing simple. All of our time wasn’t wasted. It’s good that we enter into the depth of these matters rather than staying at the superficial level. We’ve gotten to that stage.

the paradox of participation: towards a theory of action

The foregoing case study illustrates difficulties in forming participative relation-ships in the context of action research. Borrowing a term coined by Ospina et al. (2004), we call these difficulties the ‘paradox of participation’, which we define as a situation in which action researchers, acting to actualize participatory and democratic values, unintentionally impose participatory methods upon partners who are either unwilling or unable to act as researchers. In producing the paradox, Victor found himself, out of good intentions, acting in ways that contradicted the very participative values he was trying to promote. At least part of the time he was unaware of this contradiction, but even as awareness began to seep in, he found it difficult to change the dynamic. Kamil too acted in ways that deepened and perpetuated our inability to engage the conflicts. Daniella was aware of these contradictions and of differences between Victor and members of Nebras, but she held back and focused on smoothing over the relationship rather than engaging the conflict. In this way, she silenced her own voice, contributed to the blindness, and relinquished a potentially constructive leadership role. Together we created a kind of game which none of us intended and in which we all felt trapped – until the formal reflection process.

Clearly, each of us can learn a great deal from this reflection process. The discoveries of the reflection process were particularly puzzling and disturbing for Victor, whose background in action science should have alerted him to the potential gaps between his ‘espoused theory’ and his ‘theory-in-use’. In review-ing the literature on participation, however, we encountered some striking simi-


Admin

Highlight



Val

ues

an

d a

ssu

mp

tio

ns

Part

icip

atio

n is

ess

entia

l for

act

ion

rese

arch

; the

mor

e th

e be

tter

.

The

com

mun

ity is

will

ing

and

able

to

eng

age

in in

qui

ry.

The

rese

arch

ers

can

pro

vide

va

luab

le r

esou

rces

.

Imp

licit

Mod

el 1

Val

ues

of

unila

tera

l con

trol

and

pro

tect

ing

self

and

othe

rs.

init

ial

con

dit

ion

s

Gap

s in

pow

er a

nd r

esou

rces

be

twee

n re

sear

cher

s an

d co

mm

unity

.

Lack

of i

ssue

or

goal

cla

rity.

The

rela

tions

hip

itse

lf is

an

imp

orta

nt g

oal.

Diff

eren

t or

ient

atio

ns t

owar

ds

actio

n an

d in

qui

ry.

Salie

nt ‘c

ultu

ral’

diffe

renc

es

betw

een

rese

arch

ers

and

com

mun

ity.

lon

g-t

erm

co

nse

qu

ence

s

Larg

e in

vest

men

ts

of t

ime,

res

ourc

es,

and

per

sona

l p

rest

ige.

Few

pos

itive

co

ncre

te r

esul

ts o

r ch

ange

s.

Ener

gy d

win

dles

an

d th

e re

latio

nshi

p

dete

riora

tes.

Embe

dded

gap

s in

pow

er a

nd

reso

urce

s ar

e re

info

rced

– a

nd g

o un

disc

usse

d.

Salie

nt ‘c

ultu

ral’

diffe

renc

es b

etw

een

rese

arch

ers

and

com

mun

ity. g

o un

disc

usse

d –

little

le

arni

ng.

sho

rt-t

erm

co

nse

qu

ence

sPs

eudo-

part

icip

ati

on

The

wea

ker

side

goe

s al

ong

with

the

str

onge

r si

de, b

ut

with

out

real

com

mitm

ent.

Foot

-dra

ggin

g.

Ritu

alis

tic p

artic

ipat

ive

pro

cess

es.

Litt

le o

r no

dire

ct c

onfr

onta

tion

or c

larif

icat

ion

of d

iffer

ence

s.

Mid

dle

-ter

m c

on

seq

uen

ces

Nei

ther

sid

e ge

ts w

hat

it re

ally

w

ants

.

Rela

tions

hip

con

tinue

s bu

t gr

owin

g fr

ustr

atio

n on

bot

h si

des.

Losi

ng o

ne’s

voi

ce in

an

atte

mp

t to

let

othe

r vo

ices

be

hear

d (O

spin

a et

al.,

200

4).

Blin

dnes

s.

Goi

ng a

roun

d in

circ

les.

Fig

ure

1 Th

e p

arad

ox o

f par

ticip

atio

n: A

the

ory

of a

ctio

n

‘Act

ion

rese

arch

ers

actin

g ou

t of

gen

uine

par

ticip

ator

y an

d de

moc

ratic

val

ues,

unin

tent

iona

lly im

pose

par

ticip

ator

y m

etho

ds u

pon

part

ners

.’

act

ion

str

ateg

ies

Rese

arch

ers:

Exp

lain

ing

actio

n re

sear

ch id

eolo

gy

and

met

hodo

logy

. Adv

ocat

e in

qui

ry

pro

cess

es a

nd a

sk fo

r su

pp

ort.

Igno

ring

calls

for

imm

edia

te a

ctio

n w

hich

byp

ass

inq

uiry

or

exp

lain

why

in

qui

ry c

omes

firs

t.

Com

mun

ity:

Sugg

est

conc

rete

act

ions

.

Exp

ress

sup

por

t fo

r in

qui

ry b

ut

reite

rate

the

nee

d fo

r co

ncre

te a

ctio

n.

Com

mon

str

ateg

ies:

Leav

ing

the

agen

da a

mbi

guou

s en

ough

to

spea

k to

eve

ryon

e’s

asp

iratio

ns.

Tryi

ng t

o m

ove

thin

gs in

the

dire

ctio

n yo

u w

ant

with

out

dire

ct c

onfli

ct o

r em

barr

assi

ng t

he o

ther

sid

e.

Smoo

thin

g di

ffere

nces

and

str

essi

ng

the

imp

orta

nce

of m

aint

aini

ng w

arm

an

d fr

iend

ly r

elat

ions

hip

s.




larities between our experiences of building participative relationships and those described by Busza (2004) and Ospina et al. (2004), even though we were dealing with completely different situations. These similarities led us to hypothesize that this paradox of participation may be a more general phenomenon, immanent, though not necessarily manifest, in all participative relationships.

In this section, we build on our findings and on the literature in order to present a ‘theory of action’ that both explains the paradox of participation and points to ways of dealing with it more effectively (Argyris et al., 1985; Friedman, 2001; Friedman & Rogers, 2008). The goal in formulating a theory of action is to provide ourselves, and other action researchers, with a rudimentary map for guiding entry into participative relationships, for alerting them to potential pitfalls, and for acting more effectively. It will be stated in a slightly higher level of generalization, referring to ‘researchers’ and the ‘community’. This theory (see Figure 1) addresses the following questions: under what conditions is the para-dox likely to manifest itself? What are the values and assumptions underlying the paradox? What action strategies, carried out by both researchers and com-munity members, enact the paradox under these conditions? What are the short and long-term consequences of these action strategies? In Figure 2, we present an alternative theory that begins with the same initial conditions but suggests ways of dealing with the paradox more effectively.

What are the values and assumptions underlying the paradox?

Researcher value: Participation is good and an essential part of action research; the more participation, the better

In the case study, the action researchers were driven by strong espoused values of participation that regards community members as potentially full partners in the research process. We believed that enabling the community to play the role of co-researchers would empower them and lead to better research richly imbued with local knowledge. This value is consistent with the action research literature (Baldwin, 2001; Brown et al., 2003; Hall, 2001; Lewis, 2001; Park, 2001; Whyte, 1991). Gaventa and Cornwall (2001, p. 74) state emphatically that ‘those who are directly affected by the research problem at hand must (our emphasis) par-ticipate in the research process, thus democratizing or recovering the power of experts’.




Researcher assumption: The community is willing and able to engage in inquiry

The researchers also assumed that the community members were willing and able to engage in inquiry. In the reflection process, it became clear that the community members felt neither qualified for nor particularly interested in acting as research-ers. Ospina et al. (2004) also found that the community leaders who participated in the co-research group did not all share the expectation that they would play the role of researchers.

Community assumption: The researchers have valuable knowledge and resources to provide

In this case, the community members valued academia and believed that the researchers could provide them with valuable expertise and resources. They wanted to benefit from the researchers’ expertise and felt that researchers, as experts, should conduct the research. In addition, they saw the researchers as representatives of a powerful public academic institution that wanted to do some-thing for their community. They wanted to benefit from the researchers’ expertise and felt that researchers, as experts, should conduct the research. Similarly, in her project with sex workers, Busza (2004, p. 202) found that ‘research objectives . . . did not mirror those of participants who generally valued the project for its social opportunities, support mechanisms, and provision of new training and services’.

Model 1 values

As will be seen, the action strategies employed by both sides reflect what Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978) call ‘Model 1’ governing values: unilateral control and protecting self and others. We did not espouse these values and kept ourselves largely unaware of their influence, but they were implicit in our behavior and accounted, at least in part, for our inability to effectively engage conflicts and build the partnership.

Under what contextual conditions is the paradox likely to manifest itself?

Gaps in power and resources between researchers and community members

In this case, participants on both sides were embedded within socio-political and institutional structures that placed them on far from equal footing. Community members were middle-class members of the Palestinian Arab Israeli minority




working through a small, struggling non-governmental organization with no outside institutional support in a severely economically depressed community. The researchers, on the other hand, were middle-class members of the Jewish majority, working out of a large well-established, mainstream, government fund-ed educational institution. Nevertheless, the relationship between the researchers and Nebras was formed under an illusion of equality and commonality of inter-ests that persisted for almost two years. Both sides, of course, were aware of these structures, but they rarely, if ever, openly raised the question of how they might be impacting their ability to create a participative relationship.

Our hypothesis is that, the wider the gaps and the more deeply embedded, the more difficulty potential partners will have reaching agreement based on open communication and free choice. For example, in Busza’s (2004) action research with sex workers there was an enormous gap between relative power and the freedom of choice exercised by the researchers and by the sex workers. Busza (2004) tried to teach skills of ‘strategic refusal’ as part of her action research project in order to try to ensure that the sex workers participated out of genuine interest. At the other end of the spectrum, the researchers and the community leaders in the study Ospina et al. (2004) enjoyed almost equal power and freedom of choice. As a consequence, the paradox played itself out differently in each of these three cases.

Issue or goal clarity

In our case, neither side had a specific and clearly defined issue or problem that demanded immediate and focused attention. Both sides had multiple agendas and would have been willing to work on just about any issue that was of interest to the other side. This lack of focus and openness created conditions for a kind of instability or drift, with both sides trying to figure out and adapt to each other. In the studies by Busza (2004) and Ospina et al. (2004) the fact that different perspectives were held by different stakeholders, including funders, created con-ditions for the emergence of the paradox.

The relationship as a goal

In this case, establishing and maintaining the relationship itself was, at least at first, the main goal of both sides. The importance of the relationship created con-ditions for the paradox because both sides acted to maintain the relationship by avoiding conflicts and ignoring their own doubts.


Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight



Different orientations towards action and inquiry

By definition action research entails both action and inquiry, usually expressed as parts of the action research ‘spiral’ (Zuber-Skerrit, 2001) or ‘cycle’ (Argyris et al., 1985). As the case illustrates, however, potential partners may have very different orientations towards inquiry and action. In our case the community had a clear action orientation, such as suggesting at the first meeting that the researchers conduct a survey. The researchers, on the other hand, felt that it was important to engage in a systematic process of joint inquiry that would lead to clearer goals and definition of the issues as a prelude to effective action. Members of Nebras began losing interest in the relationship when they saw that it focused more on an inquiry process than on concrete action.

Salient differences in the ‘cultural repertoires’ of researchers and the community

Clearly cultural differences between the researchers and their community partners had an influence on the relationship. For example, in discussing the first draft of this article, the community members pointed to following issue:

Nebras: We noted that the researchers always ended their sentences with a question, putting the ball back into our court. For us, asking questions is a sign of power over and domination, in which the stronger party asks questions and the weaker party is expected to give answers.

Researchers: Our intention in asking questions was exactly the opposite. We saw it as a strategy of ‘high inquiry’ – not taking our own interpretation of the situation for granted and trying to really understand Nebras. We were completely unaware of the effect of our questions on the other side.

However, we believe that it is too simplistic to attribute this misunderstanding to different cultural norms between Arabs and Jews. Individuals are culturally complex beings, whose thinking and behavior are shaped by a variety of national, ethnic, religious, professional, and other cultures. We regard culture as offer-ing a ‘repertoire of capacities from which varying strategies of action may be constructed’ (Swidler, 1986, p. 284). The wider the gaps between the cultural repertoires of the researchers and members of the community, the more likely the paradox will emerge.




What action strategies enacted the paradox?

Researcher strategies: Explaining action research ideology and methodology. Advocating for inquiry processes and asking for support. Ignoring calls for immediate action

Although the researchers spoke about mutual learning, they came to the relation-ship with special knowledge about the meaning, values, and practice of action research itself. They felt they had to impart this knowledge to their partners in order to make participative research work. This educative role risks imposing or patronizing, especially when there are power differentials. In the case study, the researchers responded to the community’s call for action as if it stemmed from a lack of understanding of action research and responded by explaining again and again until Kamil acquiesced.

Community strategies: Suggest concrete actions. Express support for inquiry but reiterate the need for concrete action

The community leader’s strategy was to suggest ideas for action, based on his perception of what academics do, and to hope that his ideas would be adopted. When his ideas were ignored, the strategy was to ignore being ignored and to continue with the conversation. This case study points to the real danger that the use of concepts like ‘participatory’ may mask the influence of power relations on what people think, see, hear, and do (Hall, 2001). It also illustrates how relatively powerless groups may echo the voices of the powerful, either as a conscious way of appearing to comply with the more powerful parties’ wishes or as a result of the internalization of dominant views and values (Freire, 1970; Gaventa & Cornwall, 2001).

Common strategies: Leaving the agenda ambiguous enough to speak to everyone’s aspirations. Trying to move things in the direction you want without direct conflict or embarrassing the other side. Smoothing differences and stressing the importance of maintaining warm and friendly relationships

What began as conflict avoidance in the initial meeting took root as a kind of ‘defensive routine’ (Argyris, 1994) and dominated the relationship for almost two years. Smoothing over tensions kept the relationship going but contributed to an inability to deal with conflicts constructively. In their study of researcher-practitioner partnership, Ospina et al. (2004) identified a similar pattern in which researchers refrained from challenging assumptions held by their practitioner partners.




What are the short- and long-term consequences of these action strategies?

In the short term, these actions strategies create a kind of ‘pseudo-participation’. In our case, we held frequent meetings and other activities, made decisions together, and exhibited superficial conviviality. All of this created a feeling of participa-tion. In fact, the community, the weaker side in this case, was slowly coerced into going along with the researchers, but without real commitment. The community perceived the educative process as meaning ‘you, the community, wait until we, the researchers, teach you and we will see whether what you say is actually right’. Thus, the community saw the researchers’ expectation that they would act as researchers as reflecting superiority and a lack of fairness.

The researchers felt that something was wrong. They experienced it as ‘foot-dragging’ and a lack of commitment on the part of the community mem-bers, whom they felt they had to push to move things ahead. Furthermore, par-ticipative action research methods, such as action evaluation, became ritualistic with people simply going through the motions. The avoidance of conflict meant that there was little or no direct confrontation or clarification of differences.

The paradox of participation can also work the other way. Ospina et al. (2004) found that, in their attempts to make space for voices of the practitioners, the researchers purposely kept their thoughts to themselves, which ended up not only devaluing their expertise but also creating a lack of clarity about their role as researchers. In order to be accepted and establish an ongoing relationship with community members, action researchers sometimes take on functions that have nothing to do with action research. For example, Braithewaite, Cockwill, O’Neill, and Rebane (2007, p. 66) found that the role of a ‘Community Based Action Researcher’ (CBAR) meant very little to people in the community. In order to be accepted in their new role, community members who became action researchers not only had to continue carrying out their former roles and respon-sibilities, but they were also expected to provide service not directly related to the action research and that may require a great deal of support over a long period of time. Similarly, Williams, St Quintin, and Hoadley (2006) found that the action researcher was used as a ‘resource’ by organizational members in ways that blurred his identity as a researcher and made it very difficult to keep a focus on the research itself.

Over time the action strategies and their consequences create growing frus-tration and disappointment on both sides. In our case, the relationship continued but neither side felt that it was getting what it really wanted. The subtle game of domination-submission between the researchers and the community members led to a feeling of going around in circles rather than moving forward. In the long term these strategies lead to large investments of time, resources, and personal prestige but with few positive concrete results or changes. In our case there were




many meetings and activities, but it all seemed to go nowhere. On both sides, the energy of participants, as well as the leaders, dwindled.

The paradox of participation not only undermines relationships, but also reinforces the gaps in power and resources that the action research was meant to address. Thus, the researchers and the community produced the kind of domi-nant-submissive, powerful-powerless relationships that they wanted to change. Until these power gaps and ‘cultural’ differences were discussed, there was little learning on either side.

What can be done to deal more effectively with the paradox of participation?

The case illustrates how we engaged in a process of systematic joint reflection that enabled us to step out of the paradox of participation and discover how we had created a relationship that fell short of our aspirations. The question remains, however, of how we might have acted differently from the beginning to avoid falling so deeply into the paradox. The alternative theory of action that follows (Figure 2) provides ‘actionable knowledge’ for addressing this question. According to Argryis (1993), actionable knowledge should take the form of causal propositions and be relatively concrete rather than abstract. Thus, given the same contextual conditions which generate the paradox of participation, our theory asks: what are our relevant values and assumptions? What consequences would we like to create? What action strategies are likely to lead to these outcomes?

What are our relevant values and assumptions?

We still highly value participation and would like to build our research on the basis of participative relationships. However, when faced with the paradox, we wish to be guided by what Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978) call ‘Model 2’ values: valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment. Therefore, we no longer assume that the more participation, the better. In any case, the level of participation ought to be freely and openly negotiated between action researchers and community members. Furthermore, we need to be prepared not to enter into or to terminate action research relationships in which we feel that we are overtly or covertly coercing or being coerced vis-à-vis the nature and level of participation – and in which these processes of coercion are not discussable with our partners.




Val

ues

an

d a

ssu

mp

tio

ns

We

high

ly v

alue

par

ticip

atio

n an

d be

lieve

it is

an

esse

ntia

l par

t of

goo

d ac

tion

rese

arch

.

The

com

mun

ity is

will

ing

and

able

to

enga

ge in

inq

uiry

.

The

rese

arch

ers

can

pro

vide

val

uabl

e re

sour

ces.

Mod

el 2

Val

ues

of v

alid

info

rmat

ion,

fr

ee a

nd in

form

ed c

hoic

e, in

tern

al

com

mitm

ent.

Co

nte

xtu

al c

on

dit

ion

s

Diff

eren

t or

ient

atio

ns t

owar

ds a

ctio

n an

d in

qui

ry.

Dee

ply

em

bedd

ed g

aps

in p

ower

and

re

sour

ces

betw

een

rese

arch

ers

and

com

mun

ity.

Lack

of i

ssue

or

goal

cla

rity.

The

rela

tions

hip

itse

lf is

an

imp

orta

nt

goal

.

Salie

nt ‘c

ultu

ral’

diffe

renc

es b

etw

een

rese

arch

ers

and

com

mun

ity.

inte

nd

ed c

on

seq

uen

ces

Part

icip

atio

n in

the

res

earc

h is

bas

ed

on fr

ee a

nd in

form

ed c

hoic

e.

The

exte

nt o

f par

ticip

atio

n is

di

scus

sed

and

agre

ed u

pon

by

both

si

des.

Dou

bt a

bout

or

diss

atis

fact

ion

with

the

rel

atio

nshi

p, i

nclu

ding

p

artic

ipat

ion,

bec

omes

dis

cuss

able

.

The

voic

es o

f bot

h re

sear

cher

s an

d co

mm

unity

mem

bers

are

eq

ually

he

ard

and

influ

ence

eac

h ot

her.

Embe

dded

gap

s in

pow

er a

nd c

ultu

ral

diffe

renc

es b

ecom

e di

scus

sabl

e,

mak

ing

choi

ce a

nd c

hang

e p

ossi

ble,

at

leas

t w

ithin

the

act

ion

rese

arch

re

latio

nshi

p.

Fig

ure

2 A

the

ory

of a

ctio

n fo

r de

alin

g m

ore

effe

ctiv

ely

with

the

par

adox

of p

artic

ipat

ion

act

ion

str

ateg

ies

Test

ing

the

assu

mp

tion

that

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs a

re

will

ing

and

able

to

par

ticip

ate

as r

esea

rche

rs.

Bein

g p

rep

ared

to

shar

e re

sour

ces

par

ticul

arly

at

the

begi

nnin

g of

act

ion

rese

arch

pro

cess

es.

Bein

g p

rep

ared

to

pla

ce a

ctio

n be

fore

inq

uiry

.

Mak

ing

diffe

renc

es in

pow

er a

nd c

ultu

ral r

eper

toire

s di

scus

sabl

e fr

om t

he o

utse

t.

Enga

ging

con

flict

s ab

out

role

s, t

asks

, bou

ndar

ies,

au

thor

ity, a

nd p

ower

, and

cul

tura

l diff

eren

ces

disc

ussa

ble

from

the

out

set.

Esta

blis

hing

tim

e fo

r sy

stem

atic

join

t re

flect

ion

from

th

e ou

tset

.

Basi

ng jo

int

refle

ctio

n on

doc

umen

tatio

n.

Mak

ing

reas

onin

g ex

plic

it. In

qui

ring

into

the

rea

soni

ng

of c

omm

unity

mem

bers

and

oth

er r

esea

rche

rs.

Taki

ng in

itiat

ive

in a

dmitt

ing

erro

rs.

Be p

rep

ared

not

to

ente

r ac

tion

rese

arch

rel

atio

nshi

ps

or t

o en

d th

em w

hen

we

feel

we

are

over

tly o

r co

vert

ly c

oerc

ing

or b

eing

coe

rced

vis

-à-v

is t

he n

atur

e an

d le

vel o

f par

ticip

atio

n –

and

thes

e p

roce

sses

of

coer

cion

are

not

dis

cuss

able

.




What consequences would we like to create?

Given our values, we would like to create situations in which participation in the research is based on free choice and the extent of participation is discussed and agreed upon by both sides. Furthermore, we would like to create situations in which doubt about or dissatisfaction with the relationship, including partici-pation, becomes discussable. We would like to build relationships in which the voices of both researchers and community members are heard and influence each other. Finally, we want embedded gaps in power and cultural differences to become discussable, making choice and change possible, at least within the action research relationship.

What action strategies are likely to lead to this outcome?

Testing our assumptions

We need to test the assumption that community members are willing and able to participate as researchers. This testing involves being explicit about what par-ticipative research means to us but also what it means to the community people with whom we are working. The effectiveness of testing early in a relationship may be limited by cultural differences and the power gap, but it should at least be attempted.

Being prepared to share resources particularly at the beginning of action research processes

In her action research with women in poverty, Collins (2005) pointed out that analysis and awareness do not change objective powerlessness and that academic researchers are obligated to ‘share’ their power and access to the policy process. However, this role can make action researchers uneasy. In our study the research-ers saw making resources available to community members as ‘patronizing’ whereas the community saw it as ‘fairness and justice’. Similar unease and role confusion were expressed by action researchers who were expected to provide service or resources not directly related to their roles (Braithewaite et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2006). However, we suggest that, under certain circumstances, action researchers sometimes should embrace these functions as legitimate parts of their role.

Being prepared to place action before inquiry

One of the interesting insights from the analysis is that the researchers stub-bornly insisted on placing joint inquiry before action and tried to convince our


Admin

Highlight



community partners that doing so was important for producing effective action. Theoretically, action research can begin at any point in the cycle, but most action research methods place inquiry before action or regard inquiry as a kind of action (e.g. collaborative inquiry, appreciative inquiry, clinical inquiry, dialogue, action evaluation). However, when community partners have a clear action orientation, it is important to consider starting with what they see as action, particularly when researchers are in positions of power and privilege. However, time should be set aside in advance for some joint after-action reflection and inquiry. Over time researchers and community members will hopefully find the balance or integra-tion between action and inquiry that is appropriate for their particular relation-ship.

Making power and cultural differences discussable from the outset

Reason and Bradbury (2001, p. 10) suggest that the ‘pedagogy of the oppressed’ be matched by a ‘pedagogy of the privileged’ in which people in positions of rela-tive power, including action researchers, acknowledge the built-in inequalities and learn how to legitimately exercise power and position. The relative privilege of professional action researchers over community members raises disturbing ques-tions. In her account of photographic participatory action research with women in Quatemala, Lykes (2001) reported frankly on unresolved tensions that resulted from economic inequalities between outside professionals who receive stipends or honoraria and transportation funds and their community partners who live in extreme poverty but receive little, if any, financial benefit from the project. In their community-based health action research with a women’s organization, Reed et al. (2006, p. 13) acknowledged that the ‘social location’ of the researchers shaped their analysis and led to differences in the interpretation of what consti-tutes ‘action’ in their eyes and in the eyes of their community partners.

Engaging conflicts about roles, tasks, boundaries, and authority early on

When differences surface, it is important to constructively engage conflicts early on in the process. Ospina et al. (2004), for example, were probably fortunate in having partners who quickly questioned the researcher’s authority because it enabled them to surface, if not necessarily resolve, the underlying conflicts. Constructive conflict engagement is particularly difficult and requires a high degree of sensitivity when there are power inequalities between researchers and community members.




Establishing time for systematic joint reflection from the outset

In our case the reflection process came much too late. If we had set aside time for doing this earlier on, we might have changed the course of the partnership.

Basing joint reflection on documentation

In our reflection process, we used a text based on detailed documentation. Although the text was the subjective product of the researchers’ editing, it pro-vided relatively ‘directly observable data’ (Argyris et al., 1985) that served as a kind of perceptual ‘anchor’. It enabled us to step back and literally see ourselves in action, including the words we spoke and the actions we took two years prior to the reflection process. The text was interesting and often surprising, embar-rassing, or amusing. It constituted a common frame of reference for inquiry and bounded uncertainty by providing tangible source of information against which to test our perceptions and interpretations. It enabled us to carry on a difficult, and often threatening, learning process without outside facilitation or mediation.

Making reasoning explicit. Inquiring into the reasoning of community members and other researchers

These are basic behavioral strategies that action science advocates to facilitate learning (Argyris et al., 1985; Friedman & Antal, 2004; Rudolph et al., 2001). As the case illustrates, these behaviors are not value neutral – they may be inter-preted differently in different cultural and political contexts. They should not be employed blindly, but neither should they be abandoned. If there are different, more culturally appropriate ways of achieving mutual understanding, they ought to be employed.

Taking initiative in admitting errors

This advice may seem obvious, but it is critically important, particularly when researchers enjoy a built-in advantage of power and resources. In our case, it occurred during the very first reflection session. The researchers saw admitting errors as an opportunity rather than as a threat or an embarrassment. Doing so opened the door for community members to speak more frankly about their true thoughts and feelings.

Conclusion

This article has attempted to illustrate that building participative action research relationships involves a potential paradox that may stymie projects and cause




action researchers to behave contrary to their espoused values. It has also attempt-ed to provide ‘actionable knowledge’, in the form of two theories of action, for more effectively engaging this paradox. The issue of building participative rela-tionships is enormously complex, so these theories are clearly incomplete and probably inaccurate. Each new application of the theories provides opportunities for further testing and refinement – not only by seeing what is similar but also by identifying what is different and where the theories fall short.

The complexity of participation in action research became increasingly clear in the writing of this article. At every stage, we grappled with the questions of how much each side wants to be involved, who does what, who speaks for whom, and who benefits. It is unlikely that there will ever be an end to these questions, which need to be asked again and again.

note

1 From the Nebras brochure.

references

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organi-zational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. (1994). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 77–85.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effec-tiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action per-spective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Argryis, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Avnimelech, M., & Tamir, Y. (2002). A social time bomb: Economics and politics of welfare in Israel. Tel Aviv, Israel: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House (in Hebrew).

Baghar, K. (2007). Critical reflections on participatory action research for rural devel-opment in Iran. Action Research, 5(2), 103–22.

Baldwin, M. (2001). Co-operative inquiry in social work. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 288–293). London: SAGE.

Bar-Tal, D., & Teichman, Y. (2005). Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict: Representation of Arabs in the Israeli Jewish Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Braithewaite, R., Cockwill, S., O’Neill, M., & Rebane, D. (2007). Insider partici-patory action research in disadvantaged post-industrial areas: The experience of community members as the become Community Based Action Researchers. Action Research, 5(1), 61–74.

Brown, L. D., Bammer, G., Batliwala, S., & Kunreuther, F. (2003). Framing prac-


Admin

Highlight

Admin

Highlight



tice-research engagement for democratizing knowledge. Action Research, 1(1), 81–102.

Busza, J. (2004). Participatory research in constrained settings. Action Research, 2(2), 191–208.

Collins, S. B. (2005). An understanding of poverty from those who are poor. Action Research, 3(1), 9–31.

Fals Borda, O. (2001). Participatory action research in social theory. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 27–37). London: SAGE.

Fine, M., & Torre, M. E. (2006). Participatory action research in prison. Action Research, 4(3), 253–269.

Freire, P. (1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.Friedman, V. (2001). Action science: Creating communities of inquiry in communities

of practice. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 159–170). London: SAGE.

Friedman, V., & Antal, A. B. (2004). Negotiating reality: An action science approach to intercultural competence. Management Learning, 36(1), 67–84.

Friedman, V., & Rogers, T. (2008). Action science: Linking causal theory and meaning making in action research. In H. Bradbury & P. Reason (Eds.), The handbook of action research (pp. 159–170). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE:

Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2001). Power and knowledge. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 70–80). London: SAGE.

Hall, B. (2001). I wish I were a poem of practices of participatory research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 171–178). London: SAGE.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 179–188). London: SAGE.

Iversen, S., Ellertsen, B., Joacobsen, S. R., Raheim, M. & Knivsberg, A. (2006). Developing a participative multidisciplinary team approach to enhance the quality of school start. Action Research, 4(3), 271–293.

Kelly, J., Mock, L., & Tandon, D. (2001). Collaborative inquiry with African American Community Leaders: Comments on a participatory action research process. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 349–355). London: SAGE.

Lewis, H. (2001). Participatory research and education for social change: Highlander research and education center. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 356–362). London: SAGE.

Lykes, M. (2001). Creative arts and photography in participatory action research in Quatemala. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 363–371). London: SAGE.

Ospina, S., Dodge, J., Godsoe, B., Minieri, M., Reza, J., & Schall, E. (2004). From consent to mutual inquiry: Balancing democracy and authority in action research. Action Research, 2(1), 47–70.

Park, P. (2001). Knowledge and participatory research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 81–90). London: SAGE.

Pyrch, T., & Castillo, M. T. (2001). The sights and sounds of indigenous knowl-edge. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 379–385). London: SAGE.

Reed, C., Tom, A., & Frisby, W. (2006). Finding the ‘action’ in feminist participatory action research. Action Research, 4(3), 315–332.




Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 1–14). London: SAGE.

Rinawie-Zoabi, G. (2006). The future vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel. The National Committee for the Heads of Local Arab Authorities. Retrieved from: www.arab-lac.org.

Rudolph, J., Taylor, S., & Foldy, E. (2001). Collaborative off-line reflection: A way to develop skill in action science and action inquiry. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 405–412). London: SAGE.

Swantz, M., Ndedya, E., & Saiddy Msaiganah, M. (2001). Participatory action research in Southern Tanzania, with special reference to women. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 386–395). London: SAGE.

Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.

Whyte, W. (1991). Participatory action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Williams, V., St Quintin, P., & Hoadley, S. (2006). ‘Take your partners’: Reflecting

on a partnership project in a learning disability research. Action Research, 4(3), 295–324.

Zuber-Skerrit, O. (2001). Action learning and action research: Paradigm, praxis and programs. In S. Shankaran, B. Dick, R. Passfield & P. Swepson (Eds.), Effective change management through action research and action learning: Concepts, frameworks, processes and applications (pp. 1–20). Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.

Daniella Arieli is a faculty member at the Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel. She is a social anthropologist interested in action research projects concern-ing inter-cultural encounters and nursing education. Address: Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel, Emek Yezreel, Israel. [Email: [email protected]]

Victor J. Friedman is a faculty member at the Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel. He is an organizational psychologist working in organizational learn-ing, social inclusion, and social entrepreneurship. He is founder and co-chair of the Action Research Center for Social Justice at the College. Address: Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel, Emek Yezreel, Israel. [Email: [email protected]]

Kamil Agbaria is a social change agent. He has worked to promote dialogue between Israeli Palestinians and Jews and is a great believer in a future that is better than today. Address: Nebras, Um El-Fahum, Israel. [Email: [email protected]]



participation in action research.full

Documents

Transcript of participation in action research.full