H)+Critiques


 * Critiques of PAR**

//**Action researchers are often critical of own their application and understanding of the action research process. Kemmis and McTaggart discuss mistakes that action researchers have made in the past.**//

Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) identified several myths, misinterpretations and mistakes they, and other researchers, have made in the past. Their errors clustered around four key foci:
 * Exaggerated assumptions about how empowerment might be achieved through action research
 * The confusion around the role of the facilitator, and the illusion of neutrality
 * The falsity of a supposed research—activism dualism
 * Understatement of the role of the collective

Kemmis and McTaggart believed that they (and other action researchers) have overstated the power of reflection to give participants a greater sense of control of their work. Although there is a change of power and control with reflective practitioners, authentic change requires political sustenance by some kind of collective. They also confessed that the role of the facilitator often lapsed into the role of “process consultant.” As well, conceptualizing the facilitation as a neutral or merely technical activity denies the social responsibility of the researcher in making or assisting in social change. The preoccupation with neutrality continued the positivist myth (of a detached observer) and made action research look like research for amateurs. Kemmis and McTaggart identified that action researchers often misunderstand the theory-action (thinking-activism) dualism. They reject the idea that political action is somehow less rational than thinking or talking about change. Political activism should be theoretically informed just like any other social practices. The final area of error centers on their understating the role of the collective. “The collective provides critical support for the development of a personal political agency and critical mass for a commitment to change. Through these interactions, new forms of practical consciousness emerge. In other words, both the action and research aspects of action research require participation as well as the disciplining effect of a collective.”

Another Critique may be that the researcher may leave a project too soon without the participants gaining enough skills or social capital to continue to move the project forward.



This cartoon is a good example of how Participatory Action Researchers may critique other methods of research.

[]

• Technical action research is limiting because it is too individualistic and neglects wider curriculum structures, regarding teachers in isolation from wider factors.(p. 55)
 * Elliott, John (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.**

As Sharon Nodie Oja and Lisa Smulyan write: "in 1957 Hodgkinson said practitioners didn’t understand basic techniques of research and “research is no place for an amateur”. Teachers don’t have time for research and it may take away from their teaching" (p.5).