IndexIntroductionHistory and Definition of Action ResearchTypes of Action ResearchOperationalizing Action ResearchBenefits of Action ResearchCritiques of Action ResearchConclusionIntroductionParticipatory action research, or action research for short, is a highly participatory, experiential and reflective research method in which the dominant aim is to promote social change. This document will describe what action research is and how it came about, the types of action research and how to operationalize this methodology, as well as its advantages and limitations, concluding by highlighting the contexts for which this method is most appropriate and offering suggestions for changes to strengthen the impact of action research. and overcome its limits. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay History and definition of action research Action research has a multidisciplinary background, with roots in psychology, anthropology, sociology, feminist studies, nursing studies, and education. Although disciplinary diversity has led to various varieties of method, the following common threads have emerged that unite all types of action research: Reflexive form of empirical research Research subjects act as participants and contributors Desire to produce tangible solutions to have a impact on participants' lives A somewhat repetitive process of planning, action and evaluation. A key aspect of action research is its collaborative nature, whereby a researcher views research subjects as co-authors and works alongside them to shape the objectives and outcomes of the research. Another key aspect of this methodology is reflexivity; although not exclusive to action research, it could be argued that reflexivity is amplified in this method more than in others. Action research is aware of the history, culture, activities, and emotions of the population under study and expressly encourages participants to reflexively examine the problems that affect them or their community. Action research is also experiential in that its main purpose is to provide participants with a means to take action and overcome specific problems. The researcher's role in action research is not to objectively observe, but rather to work alongside the group being studied, collaborating with them to guide the research. Action research is often employed at the local (as opposed to macro) level, targeting particular problems. in specific situations with small-scale theory. It has a dual objective: to distill knowledge that will be directly applicable to a defined group; and to empower each individual in that group (rather than just leaders or elites), to implement and use the information produced by the research. The key differentiators of action research from other methodologies include its value-laden purpose, collaboration with the same people you study, and its simple, easily understandable language – in contrast to the statistical programs and sophisticated techniques associated with other methodologies. Types of Action Research It is widely recognized that there are three categories of action research, although scholars have called them by different names, there is alignment on the purpose and process of each. The technical/scientific/collaborative mode of action research is distinguished by the fact that a researcher identifies a specific problem after collaborating with a professional and then transmits the information to this professional, who in turn supervises the transfer and use of the knowledge on the part of the group in question. Using this mode, the researcher identifies aintervention based on a prespecified theoretical framework and interacts only with a professional, rather than with the study population. Another form of action research is the practical/mutual collaborative/deliberate mode, which is more flexible than the above version and prioritizes the concern of emancipating and empowering participants. OneThe limitation of this approach compared to the previous mode is a reduction in control and precision, however practitioners of this typology do not worry about this because these are not considered the primary objectives. The third and final mode of action research is Emancipatory/Enhancing Critical Science, which “promotes emancipatory praxis in participating professionals; that is, it promotes a critical conscience that manifests itself in political and practical action to promote change". Ultimately, this version of Action Research aspires to converge theory with real-world issues, and then use that intersection to enlighten participants about their problems by “lifting the veil of clouded understandings” and “elevating their collective consciousness.” This modality argues that the fusion of theory and enlightenment emancipates participants, which then results in action and change. Operationalizing Action Research Action research is operationalized by the four-step model Plan, Act, Think and Reflect. The planning phase is where research questions are identified by the researcher who facilitates the population in examining their circumstances in order to recognize their problems, often through focus groups. The researcher could also independently identify an issue and present it to the participants to obtain their consent and agreement. Action, the second phase, includes data collection and information gathering, which largely depends on the research question, researcher preferences, and limitations due to population or contextual factors. The third phase, thinking, involves analyzing and then correlating the data with potential solutions to the problems identified at the beginning of the research process. In action research, the guiding analytical questions through which to filter data are “why, what, how, who, where, when.” It is essential that outcomes are determined in collaboration with participants via focus groups or other meetings. Action research requires that the findings are agreed upon by all participants and are considered to reflect the perceptions of each participant in the population in question. Finally, it is critical that participants are given the opportunity to review the data throughout the interpretation process – not just once the results are complete – and that they are generally kept informed about research activities and progress. The fourth and final phase is reflection, in which the researcher shares findings with participants in order to enable them to work together to achieve change. This can take the form of meetings, a formal written report, a project website, a video or even a dramatic role-playing re-enactment. What is critical, however, is that the results are presented in usable and easily understandable language, so that participants can use the results with limited barriers to access. Advantages of Action ResearchOne of the advantages of action research is that it offers a simple, easily operationalized process, eliminating the need for sophisticated statistical models or frameworks. Another advantage is time efficiency, as these phases can be conducted quite quickly, which is why this methodology is preferred in for-profit environments, which often operate on faster turnaround timescompared to the academic world. Depending on the researcher's perspective, a third benefit could be its applicability and ability to drive tangible changes and real-world outcomes. Criticisms of Action Research Because no methodology is perfect, a frank discussion of the limitations and shortcomings of action research is needed. First, the level of participant involvement required throughout the study, but particularly in the data analysis phase, poses some feasibility challenges. For example, although this method explicitly states that data should be discussed between participants to agree on the analysis, power dynamics, anonymity and confidentiality between participants are not taken into account. These factors have the potential to significantly impact participants' willingness to share their perspectives, preventing candid discussion of the data among all participants. Another criticism of action research that also relates to feasibility is the requirement that reports, or findings, reflect the perspectives of all stakeholders in the study population. To reflect the accounts of all stakeholders, a researcher must talk to and listen to all stakeholders, which can be incredibly challenging with large populations, populations with exceptionally busy participants, import or prestige participants who may not find the time, or other such scenarios. Another limitation related to feasibility is the methodology's requirement that the researcher must make every effort to keep all stakeholders informed of progress and activities, ensuring they are able to share feedback and input throughout the process. At the most basic level, making progress seems difficult if the researcher must constantly be open to participant input and rewrites. First of all, it is possible that participants' changes contradict each other, resulting in a cyclical repetition of revisions. Additionally, one of the benefits of action research is its time efficiency, while still taking the time to share a regular cadence of updates and requests. providing input to a potentially large group of participants can be time-consuming in and of itself, but the additional time consumed working with participants on revisions and blocking further progress to review an earlier section could become quite tedious. Action research requires the researcher to share findings with participants, which is entirely reasonable and expected, however, scholars of this method have argued that researchers should go beyond a traditional article and support project web pages and video-recorded narrative explanations. of results, or even dramatic re-enactments of role-playing games. Although translating the results into a version easily understandable for the participants seems to be an ethical and respectful step, the above gestures seem overly burdensome, expensive and time-consuming and should not be stated as best practices, but rather as suggestions . Another criticism is the value-laden nature of this method. While many methodologies accept the researcher's inherent biases, the foundation of Action Research is the subjectivity of the researcher, with the researcher's relationship to participants more akin to a hands-on partner than an objective observer. While this feature in itself is not a limitation, the ethical issues that arise from it can be complex and must be addressed carefully. The overly simplistic expectation of change inherent in the critical mode of emancipation/empowerment of.