From the desk of the editor: Hilary Bradbury-Huang

Considering the past ten and inventing the next ten years for Action Research journal.

The associate editors’ board for ARj met at Cornell University earlier this month to consider what we have accomplished in the past decade with the journal and what we hope to accomplish in the next.  We find ourselves surprised to be already 10 years old as a journal. We plan to formally celebrate in August 2013. In the meantime we’ll use social media to gather suggestions from our readers and Twitter followers on how best to celebrate. The theme for our celebration is “10 for 10.” But ten what you may well ask? And that is where your suggestions come in. Do we want to hear what are the ten favorite articles? Do we want to hear what are the top 10 requests for how ARj might better serve our readership and community?  We are all ears!

So what did we accomplish in Cornell? We got to know one another better. We each shared what were important milestones for us in becoming action researchers.  We also shared what we saw as strengths and obstacles. We crafted a vision and mission statement: Arj exists to “re-enchant knowledge creation for a sustainable world.” Most important, we decided that the development of an online community, tightly linked with the journal and using social media, is key to disseminating the action research perspective to a wider audience. It is also key to developing the next generation of action researchers. And we were happy to have a little fun together, to eat and drink well enough in each others company that we agreed to meet again in a couple of years. By 2014 we will know what we have accomplished in terms of growing our rigor and our vigor as an international community.

I invite you to look at this short video of Mary Brydon Miller’s reflection on the themes of a half days conversation. It shares a taste of our meeting and I hope sparks some thoughts for you on how to engage with us.

Happy Solstice, Happy Holidays

Hilary

A book for all stages: a review of Building in Research and Evaluation: Human Inquiry for Living Systems

In this post, Dian Chase, a PhD Candidate at Oregon Health and Science University, reviews Dr. Yoland Wadsworth's book, Building in Research and Evaluation: Human Inquiry for Living Systems.

 Yoland Wadsworth (2010).  Building in research and evaluation: human inquiry for living systems.  Action Research Press, Hawthorn and Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

What questions do you have about participatory research?  As a student, researcher and teacher, I have many.  From the why to the wherefore, from abstract to the concrete, Dr. Wadsworth’s book provides insights and answers.  This is a book with many purposes.  Bringing together concepts from systems theory, traditional inquiry, organizational behavior, and quality improvement, this book provides an intellectual basis for action resource.  Using metaphor (the inquiry cycle as a house was especially apt), checklists, and concrete examples, the concepts are accessible and useful for students, researchers and instructors.  And by her evident passion for working with, rather than on, people, Dr. Wadsworth reminds us of our motivation to pursue this work.

Like a map, this book provides a road map for meaningful inquiry; like a mirror, it reminds us of the need to build time for reflection into our planning rather than proceeding blindly down a pathway.  From that reflection, we draw insights that guide our actions.  By asking questions, we can broaden our insights and include others in our journey.  By focusing on fixing problems, we often create other problems.  By understanding the processes, we can create change that is meaningful and lasting.  This book is a guide to doing just that.

This book will be useful to me in many ways.  As a student, it helps tie together concepts and provide a framework for understanding.  As a researcher, the reminders, checklists and conceptual cycles (would that things would ever go linearly) provide touchstones for where my focus should be.  And as a teacher, the examples will help me make participatory research come alive.  It will have a place on my desk, rather than my bookshelf – a work for all stages of growth rather than a one time read.

Dian Chase

You can get more information about Dr. Wadsworth's book at the book's website. This book can be found in Europe,  UK, USA, and the Middle East at the publisher's site right here and in Australia, NZ, and Asia from the publisher at this link.  We'd be interested to hear your thoughts and comments as well!

Can Migraine Management be Action Research?

Some people might think Larry Smarr is crazy. After collecting enormous amounts of data, Larry arrived at his physician’s office with graphs and tables. Larry Smarr is not crazy. In fact, astrophysicist Larry Smarr had discovered his Crohn’s disease before medical science did and before he had noticeable symptoms. He contends that individuals can take responsibility for and manage their own health and that modern computing technology can help. In an article in The Atlantic, Mark Bowden recounts this tale of a man who realized that an individual is an expert about his/her own body. Smarr’s story illustrates that with data from monitoring one’s health, a person can be warned, and therefore, armed against serious health threats.

In my ARJ article on migraine management as action research, I give implicit assent to Smarr’s primary assertion and to an ancient Greek directive to know oneself. In the first-person, managing a chronic health condition is action research. The person who suffers is an expert about the health condition and the suffering that goes along with it. This person may choose to welcome second-person collaborations with family, friends, and healthcare professionals. Beyond the realm of one’s social interactions, third-person resources can also be helpful. Ultimately, managing one’s life can be perceived as ongoing cycles of Participatory Action Research, whereby a person engages others in order to stay well and be his or her optimal self.

In Participatory Action Research, it is vital to engage in analyses that expose one’s action logics to scrutiny. It can lead a person to eschew inauthentic acts and thoughts in favor of authentic ones.

As a psychologist, researcher, and a person with a disability from a chronic health condition, I’m interested in others’ views on this topic. Are the types of self-scrutiny that I describe and that Smarr evidences indicative of well-being? Or, is it plain old narcissism? 

I look forward to your thoughts and comments.

Lauren S. Seifert

Access this article online 

Back into the Field

In 2005 Shankar Sankaren wrote his “Notes from the Field,” for the Action Research Journal about the sabbatical he took and the many Action Researchers he met during his travels in the US.  One of the over arching themes of Shankar’s reflection was how to increase conversation among Action Researchers spread across the globe.  Could websites be the needed portal for connectivity?  What about conferences and professional networking opportunities?  Or, how about good old fashion books and journals as ways of sharing information and keeping in touch?

These aforementioned methods are great, and combined with technological applications such as skype, blogging, facebook, twitter, and other social media, it appears that keeping in touch and sharing information is easier now than it ever has been.  The combination of communication technology and modern travel make it easy for people to connect in either the virtual or real worlds.

It with these thoughts in mind that I realize how fortunate the Action Research Center, the University of Cincinnati, and the City of Cincinnati are to be hosting Professor Sankaren.  Over the past few weeks I have had pleasure of working in the same space as Shankar, attending meetings together, discussing dissertation ideas, and even arranging a visit for us to volunteer our time at Gorman Heritage Farm —really working in the field.  As an environmentalist, I am often overly critical of long distance travel because of the fuel burned.  However, there is no substitution for “being there,” wherever that is.  Travel and face-to-face meetings, working side-by-side, cultural immersion, and sitting around the same table with others are invaluable experiences. 

John Hemmerle, Shankar Sankaren, Alan Wight
Gorman Heritage Farm - October 18th, 2011

As Peter Reason stated in 2005, “Thank you Shankar for taking the time!”

Alan Wight

Action Research Center

University of Cincinnati

Notes:

Shankar Sankaren. 2005.  Action Research Journal. Notes from the Field: Action Research Conversations.  3 (4), 341 – 350

Peter Reason. 2005.  Action Research Journal.  Editorial.  3 (4), p 339- 340. 

Hilary Bradbury-Huang. Participative death and mourning.

Perhaps more personal a blog than usual. I am convening family members for the funeral-memorial of my brother who died in a tragic accident 44 years ago. I see how the spirit of participation, which arises from the philosophy that we live in a participative universe, has shaped this experience. In holding the funeral memorial we remember my brother (Bill) and we also hold in our hearts all whose tragic deaths marked loved ones left behind. I have been curious to note how many of my close friends have had siblings die young and I wonder if we somehow smell that from one another and the huge toll it takes on a family. And as we understand that about one another, not much needs to be said about it. Of course we wonder how can our parents get over such a thing? And yet death and suffering is a natural part of life. Without it all would be fixed, solid, stolid - another form of frozen death. In my eyes the memorial will be held here in Portland, for my parents it will be in Dublin, for my sister in Boston, for my friend in Tel Aviv ... others will light candles around these many masses and chantings of the heart sutra.  We have coordinated our internationally attunded clocks for "participating together" at 10AM/18.00 GMT on Saturday October 1st. This is a 21st Century memorial. By default I love ritual and by practice I have come to love participative ritual. I read a lovely poem today by Wislawa Szymborska - too long to include but called “On death, without exaggeration.” I will, however, include some lines from Emerson - which evoke for me gentle but intense curiosity about the nature of this participative/recycling universe we get to call home for a while.  Wow aren’t we lucky indeed! It's called "All return again."  Please participate!

“It is the secret of the world that all things subsist and do not die, but only retire a little from sight and afterwards return again. Nothing is dead; men feign themselves dead, and endure mock funerals and mournful obituaries, and there they stand looking out of the window, sound and well, in some new strange disguise. Jesus is not dead; he is very well alive; nor John, nor Paul, nor Mahomet, nor Aristotle; at times we believe we have seen them all, and could easily tell the names under which they go.”  

Editor's open letter to all ARJ friends and advisers

Dear ARJ friends & thinking partners:

I write 1) to share some highlights of our annual publication report (Hilary can send an e-copy in addition, if you send her an email), 2) to update you on a couple of important items and 3) to invite your input on a next round of strategy design.

1.       The ARJ associate editor board is renewing/adding to itself.  Our process has been to have a nominations committee who speaks with candidates and then brings names forward for formal selection by the associate editor board. Svante Lifvergren MD joined us most recently to lead the healthcare domain. Additionally we will vote to at the next associate editor board meeting to bring two new associate editors for the domains of organizations and education respectively. Though obvious, it bears stating: those actively “driving” the journal define its contribution for at least a few years out.  We welcome any names you’d offer to the nominations committee.

2.      

With regard to the publication report: Clearly the journal is progressing well when measured against conventional performance targets. The trajectory of “numbers/performance measures” in the report support my sense that our ranking will continue to increase, that our citations will increase and that number of downloads will increase. In my view we will likely always be a “niche” journal, but one that clearly has a significant and growing readership, one that is respected. In sum I envisage a dynamic future for our field and for our journal. All this bodes well for “getting the work out there” and for offering tangible credit to scholar colleagues whose promotion is assisted by having journal articles in ranked journals.  

3.       The positive spirit of rejection: Overall we are seeing higher quality work come to us and in higher volume which means we have maintained a relatively high rejection rate (75%).  This is a tricky thing to manage as the spirit of AR is collegial and developmental.  But to the degree possible we offer useful reviews and I have seen enough positive responses from “rejectees” to suggest that our process successfully communicates concern for developing (especially) younger members of the field while also developing quality.

4

.       What’s next for us strategically?

The associate editor board has weighed in on this topic.  The list of actionable ideas includes:

1.       Inviting all “schools” of action research to create a special issue – thereby using the journal to bridge among various schools/approaches,

• 2.       To create a variety of special issues on topics that cut across domains,
• 3.       To create an executive advisory board whose primary role is engage with strategy issues,
• 4.       To have a face to face meeting as a community,
• 5.       Invite a series  of interviews with retiring leaders of our field,
• 6.       Create an alternate publication report around metrics to be determined as part of strategic conversation.

Please add to/comment on this list. What do you want the future of ARJ to be? 

RSVP to Hilary at bradbury@ohsu.edu

Hilary Bradbury-Huang on post conventional mindsets that support action research?

I've been thinking that someone ought to name the degree and strength of post conventional mindsets that influence our field.  That someone may as well be me.  First I better define my terms:

Conventional science is what cures cancer and investigates questions such as “how old is the universe?”  In its more social scientific cast, it asks questions such as …these are questions that leads to understanding what causes what.  Action research addresses an entirely different class of inquiry – e.g., “how do we generate collectively positive outcomes” is a question that may be informed by conventional science but is not going to be answered by it. We might go further and say that the questions of real urgency – how do we act on our understanding of climate change, how to we bring our evolutionarily attuned brains to act wisely in the face of heretofore systemic problems we have never confronted as a species. As much as though we draw on conventional science, there is simply no new fact or research protocol that makes these behaviorally and dynamically complex problems solvable. But the post conventional research mind stops looking to the external world alone to find answers. the post conventional research mind uses the capacity for reflexivity, Janus-like ability to look both at the mind that has created the problem as well as the conditions that form the context for action.  The post conventional mind is one that builds on conventional scientific talents (after all most of us were trained with conventional methods) but transcends those to include a greater repertoire of stakeholder engagement.  ... more anon.