Practical action research “is a paradigm of inquiry whose primary purpose is to improve the capacity and subsequent practices of the researcher rather than produce theoretical knowledge” (Bell et al., 2004, p. 1).The main feature of action research is that it triggers the researcher to set in motion change based on the feeling that human conditions can only be improved if there is change. Thus, the investigator provides the framework required for the realization of the intended change.
In order to realize the anticipated change, the researcher may work alone or he may work with his comrades but he remains the facilitator (Elliott, 1991). During the research process, the investigator learns together with the clients. In addition, the investigator must identify the problem, collect clients’ points of view, and analyze them in order to identify gaps. The researcher is the head of the process and he or she steers the analysis of results and identification of actions needed. The realization of the anticipated change requires collective responsibility. Whilst the researcher takes charge of the processes of problem identification, data collection and analysis, and the identification of actions needed, clients are required to participate in the actualization of the identified courses action.
In this research model, several different processes are done collectively; for example, “the design of the process and the action reflection cycle for both the researcher as an individual and with the clients” (Bell et al., 2004, p. 1). In addition, as much as the researcher is in charge of the whole research process, he or she engages the clients in the process of change actualization.
On the other hand, participatory action research endeavors to first change societal reality and encourage the improvement of capacity and practice of researchers (Bell et al., 2004). This research process ensures that individuals who are affected by the problem under investigation participate in the planning, implementing the suggested plan, analyzing the research findings, and actualizing the recommendations. This research process not only aims at solving the problem at hand, but also cultivating the growth and development of respondents. Generally, participatory action research is triggered by an organization; the organization uses researchers who are familiar with the social design process and relate well with the participants. The guiding principle of this research process is that we are the solution to our own problems (Cresewell, 2011). In other words, people who are affected by a given problem stand a better position of providing proper solutions to the problem at hand. This process also utilizes both local and experimental knowledge when seeking solutions to the identified problems. Participants take part in the processes of data collection and analysis. Bell et al. (2004, p. 1) argue that “the researcher cannot have tight control or agenda in terms of research topic or design, but does need to be in a situation whereby the problem is relevant and important to participants, and uses credible methods. Participatory action research not only leads to the advancement of knowledge and research, but also to the achievement of practical results (Cresewell, 2011). Three aspects come into play when this method has been used to conduct research. They are participation, action, and research.
Participatory action research and practical action have three main similarities. Both methods not only call for active participation, but also have open ended objectives and high levels of commitment from the lead investigator and respondents to the research problem and active learning (Bell et al., 2004). First, these research processes allow for the active participation of both participants and researchers in the design of the studies. It should be remembered that participatory action research calls for the involvement of people affected by the problem at hand in the planning, collection and analysis of data, and the implementation of the recommendations (Sohng, 1995). In practical action research, the researcher takes charge of the processes of problem identification, data collection and analysis, and the identification of actions needed; clients are required to participate in the actualization of the identified courses action. Secondly, in these processes “the end objectives are not directly specified in the beginning, and results from these processes are essential in solving real problems in organizations” (Bell et al., 2004, p. 1). Thirdly, these processes ensure that the researcher and participants take part in solving the problem at hand and both the participants and the researcher learn from the process.
Similarly, these two processes have notable differences. These differences are inherent in the methods employed to solve research problems. In practical action research, the research concentrates on the notion that when the process is improved, the organization is also likely to improve. Bell et al. (2004, p. 1) argues that practical action research seeks to improve practice rather than to produce knowledge. On the other hand, in participatory action research, both the lead investigator and the participants must be from the same organization. The lead investigator and the participants collaborate in the process of identifying solutions to the problem and enhancing the research method. Bell et al. (2004) argues that the goal of this process is to ensure that researchers and participants learn from the research process and become technocrats of major social changes at the organizational level.
In summary, this paper has described the characteristics, similarities and differences of practical action research and participatory action research. First, this paper has noted that practical action research “is a paradigm of inquiry where the researcher’s primary purpose is to improve the capacity and subsequent practices of the researcher rather than to produce theoretical knowledge” (Bell et al., 2004, p. 1). In this process, the researcher is the head of the process and he or she steers the analysis of results and identification of actions needed. The realization of the anticipated change requires collective responsibility. Second, participatory action research endeavors to first change societal reality and encourage the improvement of capacity and practice of researchers (Bell et al., 2004). This research process not only aims at solving the problem at hand, but also cultivating the growth and development of respondents. Generally, participatory action research is triggered by an organization; the organization uses researchers who are familiar with the social design process and relate well with the participants. Participatory action research and practical action have three main similarities. Both methods not only call for active participation, but also have open ended objectives and high levels of commitment from the lead investigator and respondents to the research problem and active learning (Bell et al., 2004). Similarly, these two processes have notable differences. These differences are inherent in the methods employed to solve problems identified.
References
Bell, J. etal. (2004). Similarities and Differences of Various Designs of Action Research. Web.
Cresewell, J. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New York: Pearson.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes England; Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Sohng, S. (1995). Participatory Action Research and Community Organizing. Seattle, WA: J. Wiley.