{"content":[{"text":"study of the past. Although we show that action research has multiple aims, \n including personal integrity and social mutuality, we also argue that action \n research studies that include a greater proportion of the 27 types of methods are \n likely to account for higher proportions of the total variance in situations than \n empirical positivist studies typically do, and we illustrate this argument with a \n review of one particular study.","bbox":{"left":0.147059,"top":0.088636,"width":0.697697,"height":0.107939}},{"text":"Transforming Inquiry and Action","bbox":{"left":0.348039,"top":0.26303,"width":0.30396899999999993,"height":0.020863999999999994}},{"text":"By Interweaving \n 27 Flavors of Action Research","bbox":{"left":0.359412,"top":0.297879,"width":0.28120699999999993,"height":0.03828799999999999}},{"text":"Beginning from an overview of the wide variety of action research \n methods illustrated in the recent Handbook of Action Research (Reason & \n Bradbury, 2001), this article presents a model of 27 \"flavors\" of action research. \n This model highlights how narrow a segment of reality is studied by empirical \n positivist and most qualitative research, as well as how fundamentally different \n the participatory study of the present and the future is from the detached study of \n the past. We argue that action research studies that include a greater proportion \n of the 27 types of methods are likely to account for higher proportions of the total \n variance in situations than empirical positivist studies typically do, and we \n illustrate this argument with a review of one particular study. At the same time, \n we suggest that action-research aims toward more ends than descriptively \n explaining variance. As a first-person practice, it aims toward greater congruity \n between the values one espouses and the values one enacts. As a second- \n person practice, it aims toward conditions of greater trust and mutuality among \n co-participants. \n Commentators on the Handbook of Action Research, including Karl Weick \n and Ken and Mary Gergen, have suggested that the way this handbook presents \n action research \"has the potential to transform the very idea of social science \n (from back of Handbook dustcover).\" One way of encapsulating briefly how this \n is so is to point out that the handbook presents action research, neither primarily \n as an applied positivistic science that feeds back financial, survey, and other data \n into a policy or strategic decision process, nor primarily as an interpretive, \n phenomenological science that invites self-critical consciousness on the part of \n persons and institutions. Instead, the handbook presents action research more \n as an \"action science\" (Torbert, 1976, 1997; Argyris, Putnam & Smith, 1985; \n Friedman, 2001; Rudolph, Foldy and Taylor, 2001). \n What is action science? The term \"action science\" is not broadly \n recognized in academic or practitioner circles. The methods that constitute the \n core of cooperative \"action science\" inquiry are not impersonal disembodied \n methods, but rather personal embodied disciplines of simultaneous research and \n practice among others on line in the present and for the future, not just about the","bbox":{"left":0.147059,"top":0.35,"width":0.705111,"height":0.543469}},{"text":"2","bbox":{"left":0.844706,"top":0.938345,"width":0.008186000000000027,"height":0.01687700000000003}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}