\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
IJAR \u2013 International Journal of Action Research<\/a>, Issue 2-2023<\/a>, pp. 112-124<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0<\/strong>The theme of the 6th<\/sup> Symposium of the International Journal of Action Research invited participants to explore the role of Action Research on the edges that societies are facing today around the world.1<\/sup> Among these edges, citizenship as a necessary socio-political process to the functioning of democracy is of special relevance, and in a sense connects with all the other edges, from poverty and migration to climate change. The paper is intended to be an initial exploration of how Action \/ Participatory Research in its different traditions implicitly or explicitly conceives its role in the promotion of citizenship. The argument is that there is an important democratising legacy sometimes lost or forgotten in favor of a more instrumental approach for organisational functioning and productivity. Listening to some selected voices from Europe and Latin America will lead to the proposal of a framework for comparative studies on the theme.<\/p>\n Keywords:<\/strong> Action Research, democracy, global citizenship, comparative studies, learning from differences, systematization of experience<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Investigaci\u00f3n Acci\u00f3n, Democracia y Ciudadan\u00eda (Global): Construyendo puentes entre tradiciones y pr\u00e1cticas<\/strong><\/p>\n Resumen:\u00a0<\/strong>El tema del 6\u00ba Simposio de International Journal of Action Research invit\u00f3 a los participantes a explorar el papel de la Investigaci\u00f3n Acci\u00f3n en las aristas que enfrentan las sociedades hoy en todo el mundo. Entre estas aristas, la ciudadan\u00eda como proceso sociopol\u00edtico necesario para el funcionamiento de la democracia cobra especial relevancia, y en cierto sentido se conecta con todas las dem\u00e1s aristas, desde la pobreza y la migraci\u00f3n hasta el cambio clim\u00e1tico. El art\u00edculo pretende ser una exploraci\u00f3n inicial de c\u00f3mo la Investigaci\u00f3n Acci\u00f3n\/Participativa en sus diferentes tradiciones impl\u00edcita o expl\u00edcitamente concibe su papel en la promoci\u00f3n de la ciudadan\u00eda. El argumento es que existe un importante legado democratizador que a veces se pierde u olvida en favor de un enfoque m\u00e1s instrumental para el funcionamiento y la productividad organizacional. La escucha de algunas voces seleccionadas de Europa y Am\u00e9rica Latina conducir\u00e1 a la propuesta de un marco de estudios comparativos sobre el tema.<\/p>\n Palabras clave:<\/strong> Investigaci\u00f3n Acci\u00f3n, democracia, ciudadan\u00eda global, estudios comparados, aprender de las diferencias, sistematizaci\u00f3n de experiencias<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As introduction: Is there fire under the ashes?<\/strong><\/p>\n Action Research, as other researchmethodologies and science in general, are today challenged to rethink their role. When the proponents of the 6th<\/sup> Symposiumof the International Journal of Action Research invited participants to explore the edges of Action Research, they seemed to be suggesting that research may have its share of responsibility for the multifaceted crisis we are facing today and that are well known: hunger in many parts of the world, forced migrations, the installation of authoritarian regimes in many countries, drastic climatic changes and environmental degradation and disasters, to name a few. How does Action Research fit into this picture? Eventually, where can alternatives be anchored?<\/p>\n In these circumstances two simultaneous movements are called for. One of them is to acknowledge the myriad of innovative practices that can be found all over the world. A quick look at the articles published in the International Journal of Action Research<\/em>, and other journals in the field, makes us aware that academics and practitioners are struggling to find ways to make a difference, and in different ways. In the last years I have been happy to see experiments in doctoral dissertations and master theses that constitute healthy methodological transgressions, for instance, mixing Action Research with Autobiography, developing creative strategies of participation in times of Covid-19 pandemic such as writing and sharing \u201cpedagogical letters\u201d for constructing the data corpus to be collectively analysed. These experiments are signs of the unrest which is an essential ingredient for any change.<\/p>\n The other movement is a return to the origins of what has become known as Action or Participatory Research. What where the original promises of Action Research, and to what degree have they been fulfilled? Are they still valid and necessary today? If they have been covered by ashes, are there some embers to be awakened and that can potentialise innovative practices and help to redefine the role of Action Research in today\u2019s societies? The search for fire beneath the ashes is evinced through the frequent citations to what can be considered founders or \u201cfathers\/mothers\u201d of the movement, such as Kurt Lewin, Eric Trist, Marja Lisa Swantz, Orlando Fals Borda and Paulo Freire, among many others.<\/p>\n There seems to be a general agreement that since its beginning Action Research, in its various formats, is related to the promotion of democracy. I will try to check this argument, and identify aspects that have been highlighted in some discussions in Europe and in Latin America, based on the assumption that different socio-political-cultural contexts will require and produce different approaches to actualise the democratising principle, and that the dialogue among these approaches is an important step towards the understanding of citizenship that, while necessarily linked to nationalities and states, today needs a broader scope given the global dimension of the problems facing humanity and planetary sustainability.<\/p>\n The boundaries of citizenship have shifted significantly in the last decades. Melissa S. William has summarized these boundary shifts in four categories: a) the boundaries of political and cultural identities, meaning that there is a rise in the number of individuals who hold dual citizenship or who have strong bonds of membership in more than one country, such as \u201cdiasporic communities\u201d; b) with the trade increase and the rise of multinational corporations, the economic boundaries no longer coincide with the nation state; c) the political-institutional boundaries tend to be expanded through international agreements that generate binding decisions, such as the European Union and other regional initiatives; d) the boundaries of democratic participation are gaining in scope, having increasingly a transnational character, from indigenous populations to ecological movements. These boundary shifts affect not only our understanding of citizenship, but the way of producing knowledge with these citizens (William, 2006, p. 224).<\/p>\n As conclusion, I will draft an outline of a possible framework for comparative studies in Action Research, more specifically as related to its democratising legacy and potential. Based on comparative methodology, the framework will be made up by three dimensions which, on their turn, can be broken up in units of analysis. The contextual dimension contains units of analysis that correspond to the identification of stakeholders, the socio-cultural environment, and political conditions. In the epistemic dimension we ask about the theoretical and conceptual foundations, the specific role of the researcher and other stakeholders. The third dimension, identified as strategic, asks about the future perspectives, emergent models, and new insights.<\/p>\n The democratic legacy of Action Research<\/strong><\/p>\n In the literature we find Action Research associated with expressions such as participation, involvement, co-production, co-generation, co-determination, co-creation, and partnership. The differences in terminology point to particularities in socio-cultural contexts, as well as to methodological choices made by researchers. What they have in common is the effort to bridge the gap in traditional research among those who are involved in the process of knowing. Marianne Kristiansen and Joergen Bloch-Poulsen (2021) ask whether we could refer to a participatory turn, considering that participation has become so pervasive, although with sometimes antagonistic meanings. As they put it, \u201cIt seems to be more and more widely accepted that citizens, users, customers, employees etc. should not simply be told what to do, what is to happen to them, or what is best for them. They should be involved to a greater extent\u201d (p. 17). This may refer to people having more influence on decisions that affect their lives, but it may also refer to improving efficiency and achieving more durable results. That is also why, in their assessment, Action Research practices tread a fine line between improving efficiency and promoting democratisation and humanisation.<\/p>\n This fine line seems to be at the risk of being blurred in favor of consumerism and productivity, in what is being defined as surveillance capitalism. As pointed out in a recent collective text: \u201cSurveillance capitalism succeeds in expropriating citizens\u2019 civil rights as well as their capacities to participate in deliberative democracy and to live their lives according to their individual preferences. Surveillance capitalism thus attacks democracy at its very roots\u201d (Fricke et al, 2022, p. 12). The authors then argue that to reduce Action Research to improving organisational processes or coping with specific social and environmental issues means giving up the democratic ambitions that are part and parcel of Action Research.<\/p>\n These democratic ambitions can be found already in Kurt Lewin. In his seminal text \u201cAction Research and minority problems\u201d he makes explicit that the methodological approach he is proposing is far from neutral, or situated in a sphere above the actual problems people are facing in their lives and communities. We may question his \u201csocial engineering\u201d concept as too mechanical, but his recommendation that \u201cit will be necessary to install fact-finding procedures, social eyes and ears, right into social bodies\u201d has become a basic principle in the various traditions or tendencies of Action Research (Lewin, 1946, p. 38). These social ears and eyes are to be installed in social bodies to produce changes by the people themselves based on values of social justice. Science, he points out, gives more \u201cfreedom and power to both to the doctor and the murderer, for democracy and fascism\u201d (p. 44). Already in his time he recognised that the so-called minority problems are indeed the majority problems. Today we might prefer to say that that they are the problems of humanity.<\/p>\n But there are two other features in Lewin\u2019s article that I want to highlight for the arguments in this text. First, there is the recognition that Action Research should be carried out by a \u201csymphony\u201d of disciplines given the complexity of social problems. Interestingly, economics should be integrated with psychology, sociology anthropology and other social sciences. He foresees a promising future for the integration of disciplines, whether through the amalgamation in one social science or a just a co-operation, both of which are still far to be accomplished. Institutionalisation of inter and transdisciplinarity is still a major concern when it comes to facing today\u2019s major social and environmental problems (Klein, Baptista & Streck, 2022).<\/p>\n The second point I want to highlight from Lewin\u2019s text is the geopolitical scope of social problems, a fact that is also becoming more evident with growing global interconnectedness. Lewin\u2019s insight may have become a kind of common sense, but we are still far from finding a solution. Let us listen to him: \u201cThe last point I would like to mention concerns the relation between the local, the national, and the international scenes. No one working in the field of intergroup relations can be blind to the fact that we live today in one world\u201d (Lewin, 1946, p. 45). He then goes on saying that intergroup relations in the United States will be affected by events in the international scene, and particularly by the fate of \u201ccolonial peoples\u201d. Foreseeing the strength of the emergent power he asks if the United States would be willing to give up the usual policy of exploitation \u201cwhich made colonial imperialism the most hated institution the world over\u201d (p. 46). It can be mentioned only in passing that Lewin\u2019s admonition points to what today is being discussed in (de)colonial studies, where coloniality of knowledge is imbedded in power structures that keep reproducing social inequalities, racial discrimination and not least the exploitation of nature (Mora\u00f1a, Dussel & J\u00e1uregui, 2008).<\/p>\n The democratic and democratising legacy of Action Research can serve as an ethical reserve to deal with the present historic situation (Gunnarsson et al, 2016, p. 6). There is obviously no single or easy answer even to what we understand by democracy, but most of us would agree that democracy goes beyond electing representatives from time to time. It involves the enabling of people for responsible participation in designing and defining their lives as well as the life, present and future, on and of the planet. This implies recognising the political dimension of Action Research, and its capacity to create new kinds of knowledge due to the democratic participatory way of producing this knowledge. Ahedo (2022) argues that Action Research must \u201crecover the political sense of community action\u201d (p. 31) starting from the bottom up, rebuilding the self by \u201cincarnating and politicising pain\u201d. Only so could the individual Cinderellas break the condemnation to perpetually scrubbing the floor and, united, change the story.<\/p>\n 1<\/sup> \u201cAction Research on the Edge\u201d \u2013 IJAR 2022 Symposium, October 12\u201314, 2022, organized and promoted by Arama \u2013 Initiative in Action Research, Sabanci University, Istanbul.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/budrich.de\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/served.png\")
Would you like to continue reading? This article was published in issue 2-2023<\/a> of IJAR \u2013 International Journal of Action Research<\/a>.<\/p>\n