Let us confess that the schools have never built a newsocial order, but have always in all times and in all landsbeen the instruments through which social forces wereperpetuated. If our new curriculum revision is to dobetter, it must undertake an acceptance of the profoundsocial and economic changes which are now takingplace in the world. (Horace Mann Bond, ‘The curricu-lum and the Negro child’, 1935: 68)

This quote comes out of a tradition that seemsquite disconnected from many commonunderstandings of action research. Yet for me itraises issues that are at the core of actionresearch practices. It demands recognition ofthe essentially ‘conserving’ function of school-ing, and highlights the need for educationalresponses to profound structural changes insociety. It also comes out of a long-standingtradition of African American academic litera-ture that has refuted the dominant narrative ofeducational history which claimed educationas a major vehicle for social advancement ofdisempowered peoples. It also embodies majorquestions that have haunted me for manyyears, as to what extent and in what waysaction research in educational work can play arole in building a ‘new social order’ (Counts,1932/1978) – one in which economic andsocial justice are central aims. A major part of

this chapter addresses these issues, by examin-ing the multiple practices of action research,both historically and conceptually.

Action research has long been part of researchin education, as well as in multiple social sciencefields. But even a brief look at the literaturereveals important differences in the processes aswell as the purposes of the research. Some formshighlight new strategies for data collection andanalysis which correspond to varied theoreticalframeworks underpinning the research, whileothers look remarkably similar to ‘traditional’forms of empirical/analytic or interpretiveresearch. Some focus on relatively narrowaspects of classroom work, while others seekconnections to larger social visions and socialmovements. In much of my work over the past20 years, I have sought to understand thesevaried meanings and practices dimensionally, interms of their histories and in terms of theirunderlying assumptions. In this effort, SandraHarding’s (1987) definitions of ‘method’,‘methodology’, and ‘epistemology’ have beenvery useful. In her distinctions, a ‘method’ is atechnique or process by which evidence is gath-ered. In contrast, a ‘methodology’, encompassesboth the role of theory and the means ofanalysis that outline how we should proceed as

1Revisiting the Professional, Personal,

and Political Dimensions of Action Research

S U S A N E . N O F F K E

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 5

researchers in addressing the data we collect viaour varied ‘methods’. The theories we use andthe data analysis strategies we employ are notneutral means; they embody our relations topower through the arenas they center.

‘Epistemology’, in Harding’s depiction,includes the usual interpretation of a ‘theory ofknowledge’ (1987: 3), yet it takes us much fur-ther in ways very useful to understandingaction research. She invokes the sociologicalsense of epistemologies as differing ‘strategiesfor justifying beliefs’(p. 3), which in turnreminds us that all social research is a socialconstruction, made possible through existingpower relations. Harding’s further emphasison epistemology pushes toward examiningassumptions about ‘who can be a “knower”’?,about what strategies count as ‘means to belegitimated as knowledge’?, and about ‘whatkinds of things can be known’? (p. 3). Thevaried forms of action research address thesequestions quite distinctly. Some assert a ‘grass-roots’ form of knowledge production and chal-lenge existing research methodologies whileothers reinscribe them and the existing powerrelations from which they emanate.

Over the past two decades, I have worked onfield-based efforts as well as on conceptualresearch involving careful readings of both theliterature on educational action research andvarious strands of relevant social research. Thehistorical part of this research led to identify-ing ‘professional, personal, and political’dimensions to action research. These dimen-sions, which I used in an extensive review ofthe action research literature more than tenyears ago (Noffke, 1997a), have formed, at myco-editor’s suggestion, the framework for thisbook. An important caveat was noted then:

These three areas – the professional, the personal, andthe political – form the frames for this review of the lit-erature on action research. They may seem to be distinctemphases; within the context of action research, how-ever, all clearly deal with issues of power and control. Inthat sense, the public sphere of professionalism and thedomain of the personal are also particular manifesta-tions of the political. (Noffke, 1997a: 306)

As I worked through these dimensions,the long-standing feminist argument that ‘Theersonal is political’ (Hanish, 1970/2000) playeda role. Also important was the recognition that

the professional dimension, too, is an impor-tant part of the power structures of education,and as such, it, too, is political.

In what follows, I first trace out the dimen-sions and their various meanings. Especiallyimportant in this is the understanding that these‘dimensions’ are not discrete categories, butreflect differing emphases. As I noted then, andreaffirm now: All forms of action researchembody a political dimension. As action researchworks towards change towards improvement ofeducational practice (the action part of the dualterm’s meaning), it does so with a vision of whatmight make the lives of children and those withwhom they work, and indeed the larger society,‘better’. Such visions of change embody the polit-ical, in that they all work through, and oftenagainst existing lines of power.

I next look at what has transpired in the pastdecade. A prominent characteristic of this eraof action research is tremendous growth, bothin its conceptual and practical understandingsand in the visibility of action research inprominent journals and texts emanating fromthe academy. But alongside that growth, interms of the growing acceptance of actionresearch in educational settings, has beenincreased visibility of action research in educa-tional work in non-school settings.

Finally, I address work in action research inthe current context. Part of this section addressesthe impact of globalization alongside the grow-ing recognition of action research as an interna-tional phenomenon, or social movement. Heretoo there are tensions, as work moves forward torecognize the local and often cultural needs ofkeeping action research flexible and responsiveto differing contexts. The contradictory contextof the huge growth in neo-liberal constructionsof education alongside the growth in a form ofresearch that emphasizes ‘grassroots’ knowledgewill be explored.

UNDERSTANDING ACTION RESEARCHDIMENSIONALLY

The dimensions of ‘professional, personal, andpolitical’ were derived from historical study ofthe field of action research (Noffke, 1997b).

6 CHAPTER 1

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 6

My primary concern in using the ‘dimensions’construct was to find a way to explore the mul-tiple layers of assumptions, purposes, andpractices without creating an implicitly hierar-chical set of categories which could be used toprioritize or even dismiss some forms of actionresearch in comparison to others. Instead, Isought a way to see the complexities and inter-connectedness across the dimensions. While allforms of action research (and indeed allresearch) embody the political, I felt that whatwas needed was a way to see the complexitiesof work in action research, rather than to findthe form that is ‘just right’.

THE PROFESSIONAL

From its early emergence in the early part ofthe 20th century, action research was part of anoverall context of struggle in the social sciencesover the nature of research. At the same time,feminists and scholars such as W.E.B. DuBoiswere working at creating a form of socialresearch that was deeply connected to socialstruggles. In Europe and the U.S. scholars suchas J.L. Moreno (Altrichter and Gstettner,1993), John Collier, and Kurt Lewin worked atdeveloping forms of research that were aimedat solving social problems. In emergent fieldslike education, action research was articulatedin terms of its potential to enhance the ‘scienceof education’ as well as the status of the profes-sionals who work in schools and colleges.Developing a ‘knowledge base’ for teaching hasbeen tantalizing educational academics sincethe beginnings of their move into universitiesin the early 20th century. Research by and withteachers has been one way to advance thatagenda, and clearly highlights action researchas a ‘knowledge generating’ activity.

Action research projects have varied greatlyin this area, though, ranging from some whichhave focused on technical skills to those whichinclude teachers in the process of theorizing,through their research, on the intended ends aswell as means of educational work. In the U.S.,the work of Stephen Corey in the early 1950swas clearly directed towards the latter. In the

1970s, the work of Lawrence Stenhouse (1975),and John Elliott in the U.K., developed a con-trasting and conscious effort to reframe thenature of teaching as in itself a form ofresearch, and to extend the concept of the pro-fessional to highlight careful deliberation overboth the ends and means of educational work.Through projects such as the HumanitiesCurriculum Project and the Ford TeachingProject, they built not just a body of knowledgeabout educational practice, but also a concep-tion of teaching that focuses on careful reflec-tion on data from one’s own practice as thebasis for subsequent theorizing and actions.This work formed the foundation for thedevelopment of the Classroom (laterCollaborative) Action Research Network andlater on to the establishment of the journalEducational Action Research in 1993.

Action research in Australia was also devel-oping in the late 1970s, partly influenced bythe ideas of Lawrence Stenhouse, but alsoenhanced by a political context in which muchcurriculum work was being done aroundissues of educational equity. Many scholars atDeakin University, and elsewhere in Australia,worked on projects that were school-based andused action research to improve educationalunderstanding and practice, as well as theircontext. The work used the Lewinian ‘spiral’ ofplanning, taking action, observing and reflect-ing as core elements to the action researchprocess, typified in The Action ResearchPlanner (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1981). Carrand Kemmis (1983) later developed some ofthe ideas into an important book, BecomingCritical, which richly explored the transforma-tion of educational research in a way thatembodied a new construction of the relation-ship between theory and practice, and alsocontributed to the professional developmentof teachers.

Action research in the U.S. also experienceda ‘rebirth’ during this same era. Beginning withfederally funded projects aimed at familiariz-ing teachers with research methods and at build-ing stronger university–school collaborations,there was a clear emphasis on enhancing thestatus of the profession of teaching, throughrecognition of the knowledge producing

REVISITING DIMENSIONS OF ACTION RESEARCH 7

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 7

potential of teachers. The ‘teacher researchmovement’, advanced through the efforts ofmany teacher education researchers such asMarilyn Cochran-Smith, Susan Lytle, AnnLieberman, Marian Mohr, and Dixie Goswami,forms an important strand to the professionaldimension of action research. Beginning in theearly 1990s, their work led to an increased vis-ibility of knowledge produced by teachers anda growing recognition of the importance of theteacher’s voice in generating knowledge foreducational practice.

An important point to considering the pro-fessional dimension of action research has todo with thinking through whether actionresearch produces not only knowledge to addto a changing understanding of a ‘knowledgebase’ for teaching, but whether it comprises adifferent ‘way of knowing’, one that can bridgetheory and practice, but also thereby generatenew ways of understanding practice. Actionresearch has been seen as a means of adding toknowledge generated in the academy via tradi-tional methods, but it has also been seen as adistinctive way of knowing. This point isdirectly related to whether action research isseen as producing knowledge for others to use,or whether it is primarily a means for profes-sional development. Whether part of meetingthe needs of changing demands for qualifiedteachers for an increasingly migratory worldpopulation, or part of a response to policychanges affecting the work lives of teachers,action research has been seen as one way toenhance the professional quality and status ofthe profession.

THE PERSONAL

The personal dimension, too, has had severaldistinct aspects. One part deals with the ideathat action research has an impact on the per-sonal growth and development of those whoengage in it, another emphasizes the individualversus collaborative nature of the work, and athird addresses the involvement of individualuniversity faculty in the action researchprocess. First, much of action research work

has been conceived of as a collaborativeprocess. The early work of Corey and others atthe Horace Mann Institute in New Yorkinvolved a collaborative effort among univer-sity and school personnel. The goal was forteachers to learn about, and participate in, theknowledge generating process.

At the same time, others were developingother perspectives on the purposes for engag-ing in action research. One is best noted in thework of Abraham Shumsky who (also in the1950s) developed action research as a form ofself-development, a way for teachers to under-stand themselves and their work better. Ataround the same time, Hilda Taba, perhaps inresponse to a then salient teacher shortage,found that action research not only could havean impact on professional problem solving,but it was also a way for teachers to becomemore skilful. While the context for learning todo action research was a group, the focus ofattention was the individual teacher-learner.The role of university faculty changed as well,with attention to their expertise in the processof guiding the teachers.

In more recent years, the personal dimen-sion has taken the form of working with teach-ers to explore closer connections between theirpersonal beliefs about teaching and learningand their practice. This can be seen in theworks supported by John Elliott in the 1970s,but is also salient in the subsequent work in theU.K. and Ireland supported by Jack Whiteheadand Jean McNiff. In both, the strong theme isworking toward making personal beliefs morecongruent with practices, often involvingideals of social justice at the level of individualbeliefs. The growth of the ‘self study’ in teachereducation group in the early 1990s embodiesthe struggle for congruence between goals andactions. In many cases, it used life history andpersonal narratives of individual growtharound teaching strategies or philosophicalorientations, but in some instances engageddirectly with political issues, such as the socialrelations of race, class and gender. Personalbelief systems play into this, and issues of‘development’ take on new aspects in lookingat how individual teachers take into accounttheir own life experiences as they explore these

8 CHAPTER 1

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 8

in relation to working with children whoseexperiences are different from their own. Theprofessional is also salient, in that much of thework around individual growth and learning isaimed at furthering the status of teachers andteacher educators through educational actionresearch.

THE POLITICAL

The political dimension, which is also embed-ded in the previous two dimensions, highlightsa different purpose for action research work ineducation. As with the other dimensions, thepolitical has many differing manifestations.In the 1930s–1950s, there was a strong con-cern with creating democratic processes inschools. The search for solutions to socialproblems, the development of collaborativeprocesses, locally developed curriculum, andmore socially conscious schooling processesrepresented a ‘democratic impulse’ in actionresearch of that era.

Yet action research has other origins thatspeak to a different understanding of the roleof research in politics, one that represents thestruggles of marginalized peoples to useresearch methods to leverage social change.The works of W.E.B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells, andCarter G. Woodson, for just a few examples,represent a tradition of various explorations ofthe uses of research methods to inform socialactions, particularly ones directed at theredress of social inequalities. Work of early20th century feminists also shows this tendencyto see research as aimed at making changesdirectly, rather than waiting for someone else(a research consumer) to implement changesbased on reading of research. Likewise, the workof Myles Horton and others at the HighlanderCenter in the Appalachian region of the U.S.gave birth to another ‘stream’ of work thatshows the ways in which the generation andanalysis of information were seen as deeplyconnected to work for social and economicjustice in local communities. In this stream ofwork, action research was always deeply tied to work by, for and with marginalized peoples.

In that sense, action research has always beendeeply connected to social struggle.

The works of Paulo Freire and Orlando FalsBorda, and a large number of participatoryresearchers have also been important influ-ences for action research in education. Firstappearing in the literature in the 1970s, theseworks present a challenge to the political econ-omy of knowledge production similar to theearlier work of the Highlander Center.Knowledge generation, in these works, is notsolely a tool of professional researchers; it is atool for social struggle. Working in diversecommunities in Asia, the U.S., Canada, LatinAmerica, and Africa, participatory researchprojects emerged which highlighted theimportant role that knowledge generationplays in social and economic struggles (Park et al., 1993). In the 1980s, when action researchwas becoming increasingly visible in educa-tion, important connections were formedbetween the participatory research advocateswho had been working for a decade with mar-ginalized peoples around popular knowledgeissues in Canada, Africa and South America,and action researchers in education in theNorthern Hemisphere and Australia.

During the 1980s and 1990s, educationalaction research work in the political dimensionincluded efforts developed around issues suchas gender equity, or less frequently aroundracial equity, but showed few signs of connec-tion to social struggles. In addition, beyondCarr and Kemmis’s work in using the writingsof Habermas to highlight the potential totransform understandings of professionalpractice, or Richard Winter’s work on socialinquiry (1987), there was scant attention to theways in which newer social theories, especiallythose from feminist or post-colonial work,might inform the growth of action research ineducation. This is an important issue, as I moveto considering the last decade of action researchwork. The local and communitarian processesoften embodied in action research as a ‘democratic impulse’ still may be enhancedthrough the use of a wider body of socialtheory, one that has embraced a social justiceagenda that takes into account both local andglobal manifestations of oppression.

REVISITING DIMENSIONS OF ACTION RESEARCH 9

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 9

UNDERSTANDING ACTION RESEARCHDEVELOPMENTS IN THE PAST DECADE

In the past decade, there has been a remarkablegrowth in the acceptance of action research.This can easily be seen in the publication ofover two dozen textbooks aimed clearly at amarket of university further development pro-grams for teachers. In addition, action researchhas gained credibility through its inclusion inprominent texts and handbooks of researchmethodology, as well as through the publicationof the Handbook of Action Research (Reasonand Bradbury, 2001). It has achieved greatervisibility in existing journals, as well as the hostof new journals in education. In addition tothe journal, Educational Action Research, notedearlier, another journal, Action Research, ema-nating from the handbook’s authors, beganpublication in 2003 and continues to offer arti-cles on action research from a wide variety ofdisciplines. Action research is recognizedwidely in the funding of projects by state agen-cies and in many places plays a significant rolein teacher education. It has also becomeincreasingly accepted as a legitimate researchstrategy for the doctoral degree. What is pre-sented here is not a thorough review of therecent literature, but rather my ‘reading’, as astudent of action research, of the noticeablechanges. Many of the varied ‘streams’ of actionresearch have flourished, with rich bodies ofassociated literature developed. Other areashave opened up, offering new ways to seesalient issues in the field, especially thoseaddressing equity and justice issues. Althoughthe literature on the latter is smaller in growththan that of the overall new literature, it isnonetheless salient and important.

THE PROFESSIONAL

In the professional dimension, the dimensionfocused directly on issues related to developingthe practices of schooling and the enhance-ment of the teaching profession, the growthhas been very large. Action research has gained

acceptance in prominent educational researchvenues, with active special interest groups inmany national and international groups andtheir publications. There are many on-goingnational and international organizations withconferences and publications, and these aregrowing as more associations use the internetfor connections. Within traditional academicvenues, journals, book series, and many text-books aimed at guiding educators in theiraction research work have brought in newaudiences for this kind of educational research,and play a role in many post-graduate certifi-cation programs for teachers. All of these showa very healthy ‘market’ for educational actionresearch in the new information economy.

There has also been growth in parallel areassuch as narrative inquiry and lesson study,which foreground the professional, but alsoshow connections to the personal and politicaldimensions, and which highlight the ‘educa-tor’s voice’. This is particularly important,given this era of global reliance on standard-ized tests to measure educational progress, andthereby professional quality. This salience ofaction research, as part of professional devel-opment, could be seen as aimed at ways toreinforce educational institutions, to justifycurrent practices. Prominent professionalorganizations highlight action research as partof their professional development ‘products’,and many universities and ministries of educa-tion (e.g. Singapore and Hong Kong) haveemployed action research as part of their fur-ther education and ‘improvement’ strategies.Several electronic journals have sustained workin making the research of teachers available (e.g.Networks, and Action Research Expeditions), andteachers’ unions (e.g. the British ColumbiaTeachers Federation) have promoted its use.There has been growth in the use of actionresearch to create new interpretations of justice-oriented practice. One good example of this isthe Teachers College Press ‘PractitionerResearch’ series. Since 1996, it now has pub-lished more than 30 volumes, showing educa-tors taking on many socially critical issues.

Action research has been increasinglyinvoked in terms of work in teacher education

10 CHAPTER 1

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 10

(e.g., Hui and Grossman, 2008). Although thisidea has long been part of the literature onaction research, newer work has emphasizedthe role of action research in teacher educationin developing nations and in terms of chal-lenging notions of ‘race’ and gender. Althoughfocused on the education of the professional,these efforts also clearly emphasize politicaldimensions. For example, much work has beendone in several African nations, most notablyin Namibia (Zeichner et al., 1998; Dahlström,2003) but also in other areas. One prominentfeature in this work is the conscious effort tonot ‘export’ particular understandings ofaction research to these contexts, but rather todevelop a form of research which addressedthe specific context, namely one in whichissues of the legacies of colonization andapartheid could be addressed in the process ofdeveloping educational programs (Dahlströmand Mannberg, 2006).

Another area of teacher education in whichaction research is playing an important role isexemplified by the work of Alice McIntyre.Since her dissertation work, she has been usingaction research to work with preservice teach-ers (who are often primarily ‘white’) to explorethe meaning of ‘whiteness’ within the contextof a course in multicultural education (2002).Particularly noteworthy in this work is her useof innovative methods, drawn both from fem-inist and participatory research traditions. Shehas also applied this approach to looking at thewhole of the teacher preparation process, argu-ing that improving teacher education, espe-cially the ability of teachers to work withpopulations that are different from themselves,can be enhanced through the integration ofaction research strategies (McIntyre, 2003).

These works are rich in their implicationsfor action research in the profession of educa-tion in many ways. First, they show the richpossibilities that can emerge when the‘methodologies’ of action research, along withits underlying ‘epistemologies’ are also not seenas fixed. Rather, these respond to the culturalcontexts of the participants. In addition, theseworks are examples of how, in the process ofaction research, the ‘facilitators’ of teacher learn-ing also problematize their own assumptions.

Finally, they show ways in which conceptsaround ‘the professional’ are not taken forgranted, but rather must be examined andredefined in relation to their cultural, andindeed, global contexts.

THE PERSONAL

In the personal dimension, too, there havebeen many substantive developments. Asnoted in the previous section, Alice McIntyre’swork has focused attention to issues of white-ness in relation to teachers’ identities (2002).That same sense of the personal as intercon-nected to issues of the self and identity is alsoevident in several of the Practitioner Inquiryseries books. For example, in ‘Is this English?’:Race, Language, and Culture in the Classroom,Bob Fecho (2004) documents not only how thelearning of his students of color changed, buthow he, too, changed through his inquiryprocess. In Because of the Kids: Facing Racialand Cultural Differences in Schools, JenniferObidah and Karen Teel (2000) example theroles their own differing identities play inworking in urban classroom settings.

Another body of work I associate primarilywith the personal dimension is that of JackWhitehead and Jean NcNiff (Whitehead andMcNiff, 2006; McNiff and Whitehead, 2006).In their work over the past two decades, atten-tion to all three dimensions is evident. Theprofession of teaching is central to the work intwo ways. First, Whitehead’s work has continu-ally highlighted the ‘living educational theories’that are generated from practice, and changethrough the cycles of action research. Second,his work at developing masters and doctorallevel programs for educators can also been seenas a contribution to the professional dimension.Both McNiff and Whitehead have contributedgreatly to the availability of information aboutaction research for educators through theirmany texts, but also through the internet.Whitehead’s website (actionresearch.net), oneof the earliest such resources on actionresearch, contains a wealth of information and examples, and is regularly maintained.

REVISITING DIMENSIONS OF ACTION RESEARCH 11

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 11

The position that teachers are generators ofknowledge carries with it a sense of the politi-cal dimension, in that such a stance challengeshierarchies of knowledge production and thepower relations they maintain.

But it is in the personal dimension thatMcNiff and Whitehead’s strongest contribu-tion continues to be made. The individualprocess of examining one’s own practice is thecore of this form of action research. Questionsaround individual actions, how one might dothings differently to improve one’s practice,initiate research with a central emphasis on thevalue of the teacher’s own voice. Individualaccountability, in the form of ‘giving anaccount’ of one’s practice, is seen as crucial,along with being ‘accountable’ (in that samesense) to others. Appropriately, the mostcommon form of these rich ‘accounts’ of prac-tice is the personal narrative.

Another area of overall growth in the litera-ture has been the work around ‘self-study’.Scholars, including Tom Russell, JohnLoughran, Vicki LaBoskey, Allan Feldman, andothers have worked hard to promote this area of educational research. The self-studySpecial Interest Group within the AmericanEducational Research Association has been aninternational organization from its beginningin 1993, drawing members not only fromNorth America, but also from the U.K., TheNetherlands, Austria, Australia, New Zealand,and elsewhere. Self-study researchers have pro-duced a Handbook (Loughran et al., 2004), ajournal Studying Teacher Education, as well asfive volumes in a ‘Self Study of Teaching andTeacher Education Practices’ series. TomRussell’s chapter in the second volume of theseries (2005) provides rich insights in theprogress of the work. He recounts his longexperiences working in teacher education, aswell as working through self-study to changehis teaching.

Loughran (2007) has pushed for under-standing self-study as an individual experi-ence, but argues that moving beyond theexplorations of the ‘self ’, to a process of‘reframing’ through greater inclusion of alter-native perspectives and more visible documen-tation is needed. Such efforts move self-study

towards the capacity to create a knowledgebase for teacher education, and are a strongmanifestation of the professional dimension.One of the major agendas of self-study hasbeen working to help others in education andin policy circles understand the complex andimportant work of teacher educators.

Work by Wade et al., (2008) seems to exem-plify this approach to research. Their workfocused on the examination of teachers’ ‘criti-cally reflective problem solving’ in pedagogicaldiscussions in an on-line environment. One ofthe members of the research team was theteacher educator, while the other two partici-pated in a ‘self-study dialogue’ and in the dataanalysis process (discourse analysis). In thisarticle, another dimension is visible, that of thepolitical. The work addresses issues aroundEnglish Language Learners, with the expressedgoal of furthering sociopolitical thinking in theproblem solving process. The intersectionswith the political dimension, including consid-eration of issues of cultural identity, language,gender, and race are also evident in severalchapters of the book, Just Who Do We ThinkWe Are? (Mitchell et al., 2005). Within the con-text of their self-studies, researchers take onissues of marginalization, queer identity, andwhiteness. In another article Milner (2007)documents his work in the use of personal nar-rative as a means to address the importance ofthe consideration of race and racism in cur-riculum deliberations. Taken together, theseworks show the very personal nature of thework, as well as its inherently political quali-ties; they also point to the maturity of the field.

THE POLITICAL

As was evident in the previous two sections,the political is in many ways evident even inaction research that emphasizes the profes-sional or personal dimension. Issues ofinequities around race and gender matters aremore frequently part of the literature than ear-lier, both in individual articles and chapters,and in whole books (e.g. Edelsky, 1999; Caro-Bruce et al., 2007). At least one text, aimed at

12 CHAPTER 1

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 12

pre-service teachers (Phillips and Carr, 2006)takes an explicitly ‘critical’ stance. In the senseof having a central commitment to exposingand working as part of a social movementagainst structural inequalities in power rela-tions as a central aim, the political dimensionin action research seems at best mixed. Mostlyabsent are serious considerations of theoreticalresources emanating from outside of ‘white’academicians, including epistemologies thathave their origins in people of color or fromwomen. By this I mean that these resourcesand ‘standpoints’ alter not just the topic ofresearch or even the analytic framework; theyalter fundamentally understandings of the‘methodology’ itself.

Yet if we broaden the definition of educa-tion to include venues outside of schools andschool personal, we see much work that sharesassumptions and even points of origin withsome forms of action research, even when notalways using the term. Although much of thework I will describe is in some ways connectedto universities or individual academics, it isoften not centered in the academy.

There have been several long-term, effectiveprojects aimed at school reform, where theimpetus for reform has come from the com-munity rather than the school authorities. Infact, the community groups are organizingresearch as a means to leverage change fromthe authorities. These local efforts emanatefrom the idea that action research is aboutlocal knowledge production for civic purposes,an idea not always seen as part of educationalaction research work, but very common in theforms of action research that have developedin health, human services, and the social sci-ences. Although some of this work is reportedin the academic literature (e.g. Baum, 2003;Shirley, 1997), it is more widely available throughthe websites of the groups sponsoring the work,such as Research for Action (www.research-foraction.org), Justice Matters (www.justice-matters.org), DC Voice (www.dcvoice.org) andCalifornians for Justice (www.caljustice.org).These groups bring together parents, and oftenstudents, in work that is directed at gatheringinformation needed to provide evidence to beused to work towards change efforts. All of

these projects serve communities of colorand/or economically oppressed groups.

Another strand to this strategy of usingresearch in the cause of social justice issuesinvolves working with youth groups, assistingthem in learning the skills of research, so thatthey can apply them to working for change inareas they identify as needs. Here, too, some ofthe works are available in the academic litera-ture, through alliances with individual facultymembers or university groups, while others arenot. Some focused on gender issues, reflectingworking with girls on body weight and shape(e.g., Piran, 2001), while others (e.g., McIntyre,2000) attended to issues of violence, and stillothers involved youth who were in ‘GovernmentCare’ programs (Rutman et al., 2005). Somework specifically engaged students within thecontext of specific courses in their high schools(e.g., Cammarota, 2007), while others havecreated curriculum to teach research skills thatstudents can use to address their concerns butexist outside of conventional educational set-tings, for example the work of the Institute forCommunity Research (www.incommunity-research.org). Still others are connected withuniversity’s graduate programs, but work forsimilar ends (e.g. Cahill, 2007; Cammarota andFine, 2008).

All of these works share the sense that learn-ing the skills of research provides not onlymeans to deal with current issues, but alsodevelops a sense of agency in dealing with lifeissues over the long haul. There is often also asense that these efforts are part of the develop-ment of a sense of civic participation in thebuilding of more democratic social and politi-cal relations. All address youth groups who areendangered by existing structures of inequality.These examples push beyond thinking aboutaction research as within classrooms andschools, to connecting with the communitiesthey are intended to serve, as well as the stu-dents whose lives are deeply affected by theeducation they do (and do not) ‘receive’ andmight instead ‘construct’. They also pushbeyond constructions of action research inrelation to usual notions of the professional,instead recognizing the wealth of knowledge incommunities that can be used to educate

REVISITING DIMENSIONS OF ACTION RESEARCH 13

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 13

young people. Collaboration, seen by many ascentral to action research methodologies, isnot only within schools, but a process of bothreaching out and allowing others in to worktoward change. Finally, the projects show notonly the power of popular knowledge produc-tion, but also the power of taking on the polit-ical dimension as a central aspect to actionresearch efforts in educational work. Takentogether, they show what Jean Anyon (2005)has called ‘Radical Possibilities’, ones which iffully articulated (as opposed to commodifiedand marketed) could contribute to a cohesive,and resistant social movement.

UNDERSTANDING ACTION RESEARCH CONTEXTUALLY

The past decade has been one of substantivechanges in educational policy in many loca-tions in response to changing global economicconditions. These have had severe effects onthe professional and personal dimensions ofaction research. Accountability processes, therole of the teacher in educational practice, aswell as identity issues around teachers and stu-dents have been changing. Important amongthese has been the widespread influence ofneo-liberal policies which have resulted in aculture of ‘performativity’ (Ball, 2003). Oneprominent example is the attempt to reducethe parameters of educational work to doingonly that which results in gains in the narrowband of standardized achievement test, and the‘mapping’ of curriculum and instructionalstrategies against that which is tested (Blackmore,2007; Hursh, 2008).

The change in educational policy can beseen as an indication of a move toward amarket discourse in which notions of educa-tion for the public good are reduced to a focuson individual and sub-group achievement.What students learn in schools is thereby posi-tioned solely in terms of their preparation fora fluid and internationally competitive labourmarket, rather than in relation to some sense of their participation in building moresocially and economically just global societies.

Educational decisions seem to be increasinglybased on goals of preparing students for achanging economy, rather than on debate overwhat might best be done ‘in the public interest’(Ladson-Billings and Tate, 2006). The currentprofessional context seems inconsistent with the remarkable growth in the breadth and depth of literature on action researchdescribed in this book.

Action research most often appears to be aninherently local activity – it derives its primaryimpulse from the needs of people in a locality(whether educators, community members, orstudents), and highlights the abilities of peoplewithin these contexts to use research to addresslocal educational and social issues. Localitiesare always diverse in terms of ‘race’, gender, andsocial class, and a whole range of ‘differences’.Those who seem to be absent physically arealways present, nonetheless. This is more evi-dent recently because of the interconnectionsof the global economy and culture. For exam-ple, gender issues may be hidden under localcultural norms, but are always a factor inhuman interactions. Regardless of whether‘difference’ is the focus of local educationalwork, it is always an element of action researchbecause diversity, rather than homogeneity, isthe global norm (Rizvi, 1994). For example,even if there is scant attention to social class ina particular action research project, defined interms of the huge gaps between the ‘haves’ andthe ‘’have nots’, local and global economics areinfluences on the issues addressed in theresearch.

The local intersects with both the profes-sional and the personal dimensions. Actionresearch is part of the process of constructingwhat it means to be an educator, and involvesinterconnections between the identities of theresearcher and the researched. Some actionresearch work directly addresses issues such asracial identity and how that works throughschool practices. There are examples of this inthis Handbook and elsewhere (Peter Murrell,Chapter 34 this volume; Cahill and Collard,2003). Most of the work around identity inaction research is done within the frameworkof nation-states, rather than in relation toshifting global economies of the dispossessed.

14 CHAPTER 1

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 14

By highlighting the overarching politicaldimension, action research can be better seenin its global context, one in which the produc-tion of local knowledge is viewed alongside theemergence of global knowledge economies.Professional knowledge and the processes ofteaching and learning are transformed throughaction research, but they are also transformedthrough transnational policies driven by thegrowing emphasis on the knowledge industry.Professional knowledge is in a state of flux,along with the identities of those who are edu-cators and those who are to be educated in theskills of ‘life-long learning’. All of these changesare in relation to global shifts and ‘flows’ ofpeople and discourses (Appadurai, 2006).

Given this context, it seemed appropriate tolook at that literature for analyses that couldjuxtapose the ‘local’ nature of knowledge inaction research within global issues. One usefulwork toward this end is Arjun Appadurai’s(2006) argument for ‘The right to research’.Appadurai defines research as ‘a specialisedname for a generalised capacity, the capacity tomake disciplined inquiries into those things weneed to know, but do not know yet’ (p. 167).Historically, action research has provided ameans by which those involved in educationcan investigate their practice in order toimprove it. To many, it asserts research as ‘sys-tematic inquiry, made public’ (Stenhouse,1975). Both Appadurai and action researchemphasize the capacity of those outside theacademy to come to understand practices andtheir contexts, and to direct those understand-ings toward actions that will improve whatMelanie Walker (Chapter 24 this volume) out-lines as ‘human flourishing’.

Appadurai emphasizes the global context:‘... a world of rapid change, where markets,media, and migration have destabilised secureknowledge niches and have rapidly made it lesspossible for ordinary citizens to rely on knowl-edge drawn from traditional, customary orlocal sources’ (pp. 167–8). He sees research asintegrally connected not to the production ofknowledge for the knowledge industry, but towhat he calls ‘the capacity to aspire’: ‘the socialand cultural capacity to plan, hope, desire, andachieve socially valuable goals’ (p. 176).

Importantly, he also conceives of research as a‘right’ and links it to citizenship. Speakingabout work with youth in India, he argues ‘... that developing the capacity to document,to inquire, to analyze and to communicateresults has a powerful effect on their capacityto speak up as active citizens on matters thatare shaping their city and their world’ (p. 175).

Remarkably resonant with the emergingyouth-oriented action research reported on inthis chapter and elsewhere in the Handbook(Thomson and Gunter, Chapter 33; MurrellChapter 34, this volume), what Appaduraiinvokes has long been part of the participatoryaction research (PAR) tradition. Information,and the processes by which forms of knowl-edge are legitimated (its epistemology), havelong been linked to social struggle. The projectthat he notes is directly related to works thatthis volume highlights (e.g. Brydon-Miller et al., Chapter 40). What the PAR traditionemphasizes is that the gathering of ‘informa-tion’ can be dangerous. Myles Horton was oncearrested for ‘coming here and getting informa-tion and teaching it’ (Lewis, 2001: 357). Thelinks between action research and learning tobecome active citizens are clear. What is notclear is whether the furthering of the skills ofdemocratic engagement are prerequisites foreducation action research efforts, or out-comes (see Robinson and Soudien, Chapter 38this volume).

It seems to me vital that those using the termaction research (and indeed those who useother terms for similar ideas) are clear in theirassumptions about the kinds of knowledge(s)they seek to enhance, the traditions they feel are part of their work, the ends towardswhich their research efforts are aimed, and the social movements with which they articu-late. This may be especially important forthose who don’t see ideology and politics asembodied in their professional and personalagendas, but is equally true for those whohighlight the political dimension. Actionresearch, unproblematized in terms of itsgoals, can act to reinscribe existing practicesrather than create new forms which focus onsocial justice. In this current context we need to look for ways to create convergences

REVISITING DIMENSIONS OF ACTION RESEARCH 15

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 15

(Fals Borda, 1992) in action research, ratherthan ways to legitimate it. When viewed as anaccepted ‘method’ within the academy, thework is positioned as an iconoclastic commod-ity rather than something capable of sustainedgroup work as part of a social movement.

In this chapter and in the overall book, we’veworked to create an ‘ecumenical’ representa-tion of action research, including research thatnot only highlights the different dimensions. Itseems to me that rather than work solelywithin the academic norms of identifying,owning, and marketing the idea of actionresearch, we need to be constantly looking forour ‘fellow travellers’, our allies, our comradeswith whom we can form coalitions around ourshared interests. Appadurai (2006) notes that‘Research-produced knowledge is everywhere,doing battle with other kinds of knowledge(produced by personal testimony, opinion,revelation, or rumor) and with other pieces ofresearch-produced knowledge’ (p. 12). Thatbattle needs to keep in mind the importance oflocally produced knowledge, often narrative instyle, which frequently exists in forms not rec-ognized in traditional forms of research. Folksoutside and inside of the action research tradi-tion need to look at what has been done andnot ‘reinvent’ action research, but rather lookfor coalitions for new forms of knowledge thatallow for challenges, as well as additions, to theknowledge economy.

The dimensional analysis of action researchoffers a way to understand and thereby useaction research as a means not solely forknowledge generation (which as a form ofresearch it entails), but for personal and pro-fessional development (for which as a form oflearning it is used), and for contributions tosocial justice (which its articulation to socialmovements and social change demonstrates).Across its varied forms, action research is a setof commitments (a methodology, in Harding’s(1987) sense of the term), rather than a set oftechniques for research (a method). It alsoembodies various epistemologies, varied waysof establishing its knowledge claims. While thestrategies for data collection and the ideas thatguide data analysis (method and methodol-ogy) across the various forms of action

research vary, they share an epistemology thatsees knowledge as essentially connected topractice. As such, the dimensional analysis isalso a way to get beyond definitional strugglestoward thinking about action research asembodied in many forms and looking towardmore just educational practice.

REFERENCES

Altrichter, H. and Gstettner, P. (1993) ‘Actionresearch: A closed chapter in the history ofGerman social science?’ Educational ActionResearch, 1 (3): 329–60.

Anyon, J. (2005) Radical Possibilities: Public Policy,Urban Education, and a New Social Movement.New York: Routledge.

Appadurai, A. (2006) ‘The right to research’,Globalizations, Societies and Education, 4 (2):167–77.

Ball, S. (2003) ‘The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity’, Journal of Education Policy,18 (2): 215–28.

Baum, H. (2003) Community Action for School Reform.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Blackmore, J. (2007) ‘How is educational research“being framed”? Governmentality, the (ac)countingof, and expertise in, educational research’, in B. Somekh and T. Schwandt (eds), KnowledgeProduction: Research Work in Interesting Times.London: Routledge, pp. 42–78.

Bond, H.M. (1935, April) ‘The curriculum and theNegro child’, Journal of Negro Education, 4 (2),159–68.

Cahill, C. (2007) ‘The personal is political: Developingnew subjectivities through participatory actionresearch’, Gender, Place, and Culture, 14 (3),267–92.

Cahill, R. and Collard, G. (2003) ‘Deadly ways tolearn’ ... a yarn about some learning we didtogether’, Comparative Education, 39 (2): 211–19.

Cammarota, J. (2007) ‘A social justice approach toachievement: Guiding Latino/a students towardeducational attainment with a challenging,socially relevant curriculum’, Equity & Excellencein Education, 40, 87–96.

Cammarota, J. and Fine, M. (eds) (2008)Revolutionizing Education: Youth ParticipatoryAction Research in Motion. New York: Routledge.

Caro-Bruce, C., Flessner, R., Klehr, M. and Zeichner, K.(eds) (2007) Creating Equitable Classrooms

16 CHAPTER 1

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 16

Through Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1983) Becoming Critical:Knowing Through Action Research. Geelong:Deakin University Press.

Counts, G.S. (1932/1978) Dare the School Build aNew Social Order? Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press.

Dahlström, L. (2003) ‘Critical practitioner inquiryand the struggle over the preferential right ofinterpretation in the South’, Educational ActionResearch, 11 (3): 467–77.

Dahlström, L. and Mannberg, J. (eds) (2006)Critical Educational Visions and Practices – inNeo-liberal Times. Global South Network. http://alfa.ped.umu.se/projekt/globalsouthnetwork/

Edelsky, C. (ed) (1999) Making Justice our Project:Teachers Working Toward Critical WholeLanguage Practice. Urbana, IL: National Councilof Teachers of English.

Fals Borda, O. (1992) ‘Convergences in theory andin action for research, learning and management’.in C. Bruce and A. Russell, TransformingTomorrow Today: 2nd World Congress on ActionLearning Brisbane: ALARPM, pp. 11–18.

Fecho, B. (2004) ‘Is this English?’: Race, Language,and Culture in the Classroom. New York: TeachersCollege.

Hanish, C. (1970/2001) ‘The personal is political’, inB.A. Crow (ed.) Radical Feminism: A DocumentaryReader. New York: New York University Press.pp. 113–16.

Harding, S. (1987) ‘Introduction: Is there a feministmethod?’ in S. Harding (ed.), Feminism andMethodology. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, pp. 1–14.

Hui, M. and Grossman, D.L. (eds) (2008) ImprovingTeacher Education Through Action Research.New York: Routledge.

Hursh, D. (2008) High-stakes Testing and the Declineof Teaching and Learning. Lanham, MD: Rowman& Littlefield.

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1981) The ActionResearch Planner. Geelong: Deakin UniversityPress.

Ladson-Billings, G. and Tate, W.R. (eds) (2006)Education Research in the Public Interest.New York: Teachers College.

Lewis, H. (2001) ‘Participatory research and educa-tion for social change: Highlander research and education center’, in P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds), Handbook of Action Research:Participative Inquiry and Practice. London:Sage, pp. 356–62.

Loughran, J. Hamilton, M. LaBoskey, V., and Russell,T. (2004) International Handbook of Self-study ofTeaching and Teacher Education Practices.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Loughran, J. (2007) ‘Researching teacher education:Responding to the challenges, demands, andexpectations of self-study’, Journal of TeacherEducation, 58 (1): 12–20.

McIntyre, A. (2000) ‘Constructing meaning aboutviolence, school, and community: Participatoryaction research with urban youth’, The UrbanReview, 32 (2): 123–54.

McIntyre, A. (2002) ‘Exploring whiteness and multi-cultural education with prospective teachers’,Curriculum Inquiry, 32 (1): 31–49.

McIntyre, A. (2003) ‘Participatory action researchand urban education: Reshaping the teacherpreparation process’, Equity & Excellence inEducation, 36 (1): 28–39.

McNiff, J. (1988) Action Research: Principles andPractice. London: Routledge.

McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2006) All You Need toKnow About Action Research. London: Sage.

Milner, R. (2007) ‘Race, narrative inquiry, and self-study in curriculum and teacher education’,Education and Urban Society, 39 (4): 584–689.

Mitchell, C., Weber, S. and O’Reilly-Scanlon, K.(eds) (2005) Just Who Do We Think We Are?Methodologies for Autobiography and Self-study inTeaching. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Noffke, S.E. (1997a) ‘Professional, personal, and polit-ical dimensions of action research’, in M.W. Apple(ed.), Review of Research in Education, 22: 305–43.

Noffke, S.E. (1997b) ‘Themes and tensions in USaction research: Towards historical analysis’, in S. Hollingsworth (ed.), International ActionResearch: A Casebook for Educational ReformLondon: Falmer Press, pp. 2–16.

Obidah, J. and Teel, K.M. (2000) Because of the Kids:Facing Racial and Cultural Differences in Schools.New York: Teachers College.

Park, P., Brydon-Miller, M., Hall, B. and Jackson, T.(eds) (1993) Voices of Change: ParticipatoryResearch in the U.S. and Canada. Westport, CN:Bergin & Garvey.

Phillips, D.K. and Carr, K. (2006) Becoming aTeacher Through Action Research. New York:Routledge.

Piran, N. (2001) ‘Re-inhabiting the body from theinside out: Girls transform their social environ-ment’, in G. Tolman and M. Brydon-Miller (eds),From Subjects to Subjectivities: A Handbook ofInterpretive and Participatory Methods. New York:New York University Press, pp. 218–38.

REVISITING DIMENSIONS OF ACTION RESEARCH 17

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 17

Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds) (2001) Handbookof Action Research: Participative Inquiry andPractice. London: Sage.

Rizvi, F. (1994) ‘The arts, education and the politicsof multiculturalism’, in S. Gunew and F. Rizvi(eds), Culture, Difference and the Arts. Sydney:Allen & Unwin, pp. 94–110.

Russell, T. (2005) ‘How 20 years of self-studychanged my teaching,’ in: C. Kosnik, C. Beck, A.Freese and A. Samaras (eds), Making a Differencein Teacher Education Through Self-study.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 3–17.

Rutman, D., Hubberstey, C., Barlow, A. and Brown, E.(2005) ‘Supporting young people’s transitionsfrom care: Reflections on doing action researchwith youth from care’, in L. Brown and S. Strega(eds), Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous,and Anti-oppressive Approaches. Toronto: CanadianScholars’ Press, pp. 153–79

Shirley, D. (1997) Community Organizing for Urban School Reform. Austin: University of TexasPress.

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to CurriculumResearch and Development. London: Heinemann.

Wade, S., Fauske, J. and Thompson, A. (2008)Prospective teachers’ problem solving in onlinepeer-led dialogues, American EducationalResearch Journal, 45 (2): 398–442.

Whitehead, J. and McNiff, J. (2006) Action ResearchLiving Theory. London: Sage.

Winter, R. (1987) Action-research and the Nature ofSocial Inquiry: Professional Innovation andEducational Work. Aldershot: Avebury.

Zeichner, K., Amukushu, A., Muukenga, K. andShilamba, P. (1998) ‘Critical practitioner inquiryand the transformation of teacher education inNamibia’, Educational Action Research, 6 (2):183–203.

18 CHAPTER 1

9781412947084-Chap01 10/4/08 3:12 PM Page 18