Part 2 of introduction
Participatory Action Research “draws on and integrates both paradigms” (p. 7), modern thinking and postmodern thinking. It agrees with modern thinking in that it holds a “positivism, constructive perspective” which is comfortable because it accepts a “real reality” (p. 7). It agrees with postmodern thinking in that it accepts that the world is created by “human language and cultural expression” (p. 7) which is comfortable with the idea that “the underlying nature of the cosmos we inhabit [is one] which we co-create” (p. 8).
At first I was surprised to think of research as a political entity, but as I read further, I realized that when we include everyone that is affected by a certain action or change, we are empowering them. Knowledge = power. Participatory Action Research is ultimately a “political statement as well as a theory of knowledge” (p. 10). “The political dimension of participation affirms people’s right and ability to have a say in decisions which affect them and which claim to generate knowledge about them” (p. 10). I then was able to understand their conclusion that, “given the condition of our times, a primary purpose of human inquiry is not so much to search for truth, but to heal, and above to heal the alienation, the split that characterizes the modern experience” (p. 11).
Chapter 1
Being half Norwegian I was very interested in the fact that participatory action research started in Norway with the work done by Emery and Thorsrud, 1069, 1976; Gustavsen, 1996; and Gustavsen and Hunnius, 1981 (p. 17). In my family, the Norwegian side has always taken a lot of criticism for having very little to say, preferring silence over talking for the most part. In the “early 1970’s . . . Habermas’s” ideas was that “society was ridden by extreme power and oppression” and so to be effective action research had to start with “a process of liberation’ on the theory level rather than trying to start with the practice level of change (p. 18). The Norwegian scientists set up a series of “conference; meeting places for those concerned which they could discuss what goals, ideas or visions they would like to pursue and how to go about doing it” (p. 18). The important component was that “all concerned” parties were to be involved in the “dialogue conference” (p. 18). This was eventually called “leadership, organization and co-operation (LOM)” (p. 19). There were strict guidelines set up for protecting the dialogue, mostly to make sure that everyone who had a share in the problem would also have a share in the dialogue and thereby, the solution (Gustavsen). By 1991 over “450 conferences were organized . . . largely with individual organizations” (p. 20). The main result of these groups was not necessarily the improvements in organization procedures or policies, but rather the development of improved “social relationships . . . [and the] potential for relating differently” (p. 20). The discussion conference continued to be refined until it had a generally accepted agenda and timetable. “Since the learning regions conferences generally take place within the framework of only one – although full – working day, the number of sessions has generally been limited to three. Each group discussion lasts for about one hour. Each group reports its main points, or conclusions, in the plenary; time frame about five minutes . . . with up to ten participants in each group it follows that the time allowed to each participant under the principle of equality is limited . . . The conference report generally consists of the answers and statements summarizing the group discussions, plus lists of participants, division into groups” (pp. 21-22). The overall result of this process is “to build social relationships that can embody a principle of equality for all participants, the choice that offers itself is democracy” (p. 25) and this is the foundation for organizational problem solving.
To think that people that many times do not have a lot of say have worked so hard to establish a system where everyone voice is not only valued, but given space and time to be heard and considered. It is a nice thought that this started from Norway.
