A History and Analysis of the Evolution of Action and Participatory Action Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action research is a type of research which is conducted with research participants rather than on participants. This premise democratizes research, resulting in transformative potential, while addressing issues such as power and hierarchy which are present in traditional positivist research approaches, allowing those affected by the research to benefit from a more democratic research experience: According to Habermas, “in a process of enlightenment, there can only be participants”. However, as with social science research, or perhaps any method of research, there are different forms of action research which have evolved over time. This paper describes the worldviews that have informed the evolution of action research and examines three different forms of action research with respect to assumptions value, beliefs, and claims to truth inherent with each form. These three main forms may be thought of as “umbrella” terms for the forms of action research, with various threads of action research originating and continuing to originate from each form. Lastly, this paper explores one thread of action research-participatory action research. The reason for focusing on participatory action research specifically is that this type of action research has grown in popularity recently within social sciences research due to the opportunity for new insight for all research participants. Further, participatory action research allows for joint knowledge-production, may draw attention to previously neglected areas of qualitative research, and is therefore relevant to a specific community. For a researcher considering employing participatory action research, it is helpful to understand the historical and philosophical underpinnings of action research in general in order to better unerstand the specific intricacies and characteristics of participatory action research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".