action research a

education, community-building and change

What is action research and how do we do it?

In this article, we explore the development of some different traditions of action research and provide an introductory guide to the literature.

Contents : what is action research ·  origins · the decline and rediscovery of action research · undertaking action research · conclusion · further reading · how to cite this article . see, also: research for practice ., what is action research.

In the literature, discussion of action research tends to fall into two distinctive camps. The British tradition – especially that linked to education – tends to view action research as research-oriented toward the enhancement of direct practice. For example, Carr and Kemmis provide a classic definition:

Action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out (Carr and Kemmis 1986: 162).

Many people are drawn to this understanding of action research because it is firmly located in the realm of the practitioner – it is tied to self-reflection. As a way of working it is very close to the notion of reflective practice coined by Donald Schön (1983).

The second tradition, perhaps more widely approached within the social welfare field – and most certainly the broader understanding in the USA is of action research as ‘the systematic collection of information that is designed to bring about social change’ (Bogdan and Biklen 1992: 223). Bogdan and Biklen continue by saying that its practitioners marshal evidence or data to expose unjust practices or environmental dangers and recommend actions for change. In many respects, for them, it is linked into traditions of citizen’s action and community organizing. The practitioner is actively involved in the cause for which the research is conducted. For others, it is such commitment is a necessary part of being a practitioner or member of a community of practice. Thus, various projects designed to enhance practice within youth work, for example, such as the detached work reported on by Goetschius and Tash (1967) could be talked of as action research.

Kurt Lewin is generally credited as the person who coined the term ‘action research’:

The research needed for social practice can best be characterized as research for social management or social engineering. It is a type of action-research, a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action, and research leading to social action. Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice (Lewin 1946, reproduced in Lewin 1948: 202-3)

His approach involves a spiral of steps, ‘each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action’ ( ibid. : 206). The basic cycle involves the following:

This is how Lewin describes the initial cycle:

The first step then is to examine the idea carefully in the light of the means available. Frequently more fact-finding about the situation is required. If this first period of planning is successful, two items emerge: namely, “an overall plan” of how to reach the objective and secondly, a decision in regard to the first step of action. Usually this planning has also somewhat modified the original idea. ( ibid. : 205)

The next step is ‘composed of a circle of planning, executing, and reconnaissance or fact-finding for the purpose of evaluating the results of the second step, and preparing the rational basis for planning the third step, and for perhaps modifying again the overall plan’ ( ibid. : 206). What we can see here is an approach to research that is oriented to problem-solving in social and organizational settings, and that has a form that parallels Dewey’s conception of learning from experience.

The approach, as presented, does take a fairly sequential form – and it is open to a literal interpretation. Following it can lead to practice that is ‘correct’ rather than ‘good’ – as we will see. It can also be argued that the model itself places insufficient emphasis on analysis at key points. Elliott (1991: 70), for example, believed that the basic model allows those who use it to assume that the ‘general idea’ can be fixed in advance, ‘that “reconnaissance” is merely fact-finding, and that “implementation” is a fairly straightforward process’. As might be expected there was some questioning as to whether this was ‘real’ research. There were questions around action research’s partisan nature – the fact that it served particular causes.

The decline and rediscovery of action research

Action research did suffer a decline in favour during the 1960s because of its association with radical political activism (Stringer 2007: 9). There were, and are, questions concerning its rigour, and the training of those undertaking it. However, as Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 223) point out, research is a frame of mind – ‘a perspective that people take toward objects and activities’. Once we have satisfied ourselves that the collection of information is systematic and that any interpretations made have a proper regard for satisfying truth claims, then much of the critique aimed at action research disappears. In some of Lewin’s earlier work on action research (e.g. Lewin and Grabbe 1945), there was a tension between providing a rational basis for change through research, and the recognition that individuals are constrained in their ability to change by their cultural and social perceptions, and the systems of which they are a part. Having ‘correct knowledge’ does not of itself lead to change, attention also needs to be paid to the ‘matrix of cultural and psychic forces’ through which the subject is constituted (Winter 1987: 48).

Subsequently, action research has gained a significant foothold both within the realm of community-based, and participatory action research; and as a form of practice-oriented to the improvement of educative encounters (e.g. Carr and Kemmis 1986).

Exhibit 1: Stringer on community-based action research

A fundamental premise of community-based action research is that it commences with an interest in the problems of a group, a community, or an organization. Its purpose is to assist people in extending their understanding of their situation and thus resolving problems that confront them….

Community-based action research is always enacted through an explicit set of social values. In modern, democratic social contexts, it is seen as a process of inquiry that has the following characteristics:

• It is democratic , enabling the participation of all people.

• It is equitable , acknowledging people’s equality of worth.

• It is liberating , providing freedom from oppressive, debilitating conditions.

• It is life enhancing , enabling the expression of people’s full human potential.

(Stringer 1999: 9-10)

Undertaking action research

As Thomas (2017: 154) put it, the central aim is change, ‘and the emphasis is on problem-solving in whatever way is appropriate’. It can be seen as a conversation rather more than a technique (McNiff et. al. ). It is about people ‘thinking for themselves and making their own choices, asking themselves what they should do and accepting the consequences of their own actions’ (Thomas 2009: 113).

The action research process works through three basic phases:

Look -building a picture and gathering information. When evaluating we define and describe the problem to be investigated and the context in which it is set. We also describe what all the participants (educators, group members, managers etc.) have been doing.

Think – interpreting and explaining. When evaluating we analyse and interpret the situation. We reflect on what participants have been doing. We look at areas of success and any deficiencies, issues or problems.

Act – resolving issues and problems. In evaluation we judge the worth, effectiveness, appropriateness, and outcomes of those activities. We act to formulate solutions to any problems. (Stringer 1999: 18; 43-44;160)

The use of action research to deepen and develop classroom practice has grown into a strong tradition of practice (one of the first examples being the work of Stephen Corey in 1949). For some, there is an insistence that action research must be collaborative and entail groupwork.

Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of those practices and the situations in which the practices are carried out… The approach is only action research when it is collaborative, though it is important to realise that action research of the group is achieved through the critically examined action of individual group members. (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988: 5-6)

Just why it must be collective is open to some question and debate (Webb 1996), but there is an important point here concerning the commitments and orientations of those involved in action research.

One of the legacies Kurt Lewin left us is the ‘action research spiral’ – and with it there is the danger that action research becomes little more than a procedure. It is a mistake, according to McTaggart (1996: 248) to think that following the action research spiral constitutes ‘doing action research’. He continues, ‘Action research is not a ‘method’ or a ‘procedure’ for research but a series of commitments to observe and problematize through practice a series of principles for conducting social enquiry’. It is his argument that Lewin has been misunderstood or, rather, misused. When set in historical context, while Lewin does talk about action research as a method, he is stressing a contrast between this form of interpretative practice and more traditional empirical-analytic research. The notion of a spiral may be a useful teaching device – but it is all too easy to slip into using it as the template for practice (McTaggart 1996: 249).

Further reading

This select, annotated bibliography has been designed to give a flavour of the possibilities of action research and includes some useful guides to practice. As ever, if you have suggestions about areas or specific texts for inclusion, I’d like to hear from you.

Explorations of action research

Atweh, B., Kemmis, S. and Weeks, P. (eds.) (1998) Action Research in Practice: Partnership for Social Justice in Education, London: Routledge. Presents a collection of stories from action research projects in schools and a university. The book begins with theme chapters discussing action research, social justice and partnerships in research. The case study chapters cover topics such as: school environment – how to make a school a healthier place to be; parents – how to involve them more in decision-making; students as action researchers; gender – how to promote gender equity in schools; writing up action research projects.

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical. Education, knowledge and action research , Lewes: Falmer. Influential book that provides a good account of ‘action research’ in education. Chapters on teachers, researchers and curriculum; the natural scientific view of educational theory and practice; the interpretative view of educational theory and practice; theory and practice – redefining the problem; a critical approach to theory and practice; towards a critical educational science; action research as critical education science; educational research, educational reform and the role of the profession.

Carson, T. R. and Sumara, D. J. (ed.) (1997) Action Research as a Living Practice , New York: Peter Lang. 140 pages. Book draws on a wide range of sources to develop an understanding of action research. Explores action research as a lived practice, ‘that asks the researcher to not only investigate the subject at hand but, as well, to provide some account of the way in which the investigation both shapes and is shaped by the investigator.

Dadds, M. (1995) Passionate Enquiry and School Development. A story about action research , London: Falmer. 192 + ix pages. Examines three action research studies undertaken by a teacher and how they related to work in school – how she did the research, the problems she experienced, her feelings, the impact on her feelings and ideas, and some of the outcomes. In his introduction, John Elliot comments that the book is ‘the most readable, thoughtful, and detailed study of the potential of action-research in professional education that I have read’.

Ghaye, T. and Wakefield, P. (eds.) CARN Critical Conversations. Book one: the role of the self in action , Bournemouth: Hyde Publications. 146 + xiii pages. Collection of five pieces from the Classroom Action Research Network. Chapters on: dialectical forms; graduate medical education – research’s outer limits; democratic education; managing action research; writing up.

McNiff, J. (1993) Teaching as Learning: An Action Research Approach , London: Routledge. Argues that educational knowledge is created by individual teachers as they attempt to express their own values in their professional lives. Sets out familiar action research model: identifying a problem, devising, implementing and evaluating a solution and modifying practice. Includes advice on how working in this way can aid the professional development of action researcher and practitioner.

Quigley, B. A. and Kuhne, G. W. (eds.) (1997) Creating Practical Knowledge Through Action Research, San Fransisco: Jossey Bass. Guide to action research that outlines the action research process, provides a project planner, and presents examples to show how action research can yield improvements in six different settings, including a hospital, a university and a literacy education program.

Plummer, G. and Edwards, G. (eds.) CARN Critical Conversations. Book two: dimensions of action research – people, practice and power , Bournemouth: Hyde Publications. 142 + xvii pages. Collection of five pieces from the Classroom Action Research Network. Chapters on: exchanging letters and collaborative research; diary writing; personal and professional learning – on teaching and self-knowledge; anti-racist approaches; psychodynamic group theory in action research.

Whyte, W. F. (ed.) (1991) Participatory Action Research , Newbury Park: Sage. 247 pages. Chapters explore the development of participatory action research and its relation with action science and examine its usages in various agricultural and industrial settings

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed.) (1996) New Directions in Action Research , London; Falmer Press. 266 + xii pages. A useful collection that explores principles and procedures for critical action research; problems and suggested solutions; and postmodernism and critical action research.

Action research guides

Coghlan, D. and Brannick, D. (2000) Doing Action Research in your own Organization, London: Sage. 128 pages. Popular introduction. Part one covers the basics of action research including the action research cycle, the role of the ‘insider’ action researcher and the complexities of undertaking action research within your own organisation. Part two looks at the implementation of the action research project (including managing internal politics and the ethics and politics of action research). New edition due late 2004.

Elliot, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change , Buckingham: Open University Press. 163 + x pages Collection of various articles written by Elliot in which he develops his own particular interpretation of action research as a form of teacher professional development. In some ways close to a form of ‘reflective practice’. Chapter 6, ‘A practical guide to action research’ – builds a staged model on Lewin’s work and on developments by writers such as Kemmis.

Johnson, A. P. (2007) A short guide to action research 3e. Allyn and Bacon. Popular step by step guide for master’s work.

Macintyre, C. (2002) The Art of the Action Research in the Classroom , London: David Fulton. 138 pages. Includes sections on action research, the role of literature, formulating a research question, gathering data, analysing data and writing a dissertation. Useful and readable guide for students.

McNiff, J., Whitehead, J., Lomax, P. (2003) You and Your Action Research Project , London: Routledge. Practical guidance on doing an action research project.Takes the practitioner-researcher through the various stages of a project. Each section of the book is supported by case studies

Stringer, E. T. (2007) Action Research: A handbook for practitioners 3e , Newbury Park, ca.: Sage. 304 pages. Sets community-based action research in context and develops a model. Chapters on information gathering, interpretation, resolving issues; legitimacy etc. See, also Stringer’s (2003) Action Research in Education , Prentice-Hall.

Winter, R. (1989) Learning From Experience. Principles and practice in action research , Lewes: Falmer Press. 200 + 10 pages. Introduces the idea of action research; the basic process; theoretical issues; and provides six principles for the conduct of action research. Includes examples of action research. Further chapters on from principles to practice; the learner’s experience; and research topics and personal interests.

Action research in informal education

Usher, R., Bryant, I. and Johnston, R. (1997) Adult Education and the Postmodern Challenge. Learning beyond the limits , London: Routledge. 248 + xvi pages. Has some interesting chapters that relate to action research: on reflective practice; changing paradigms and traditions of research; new approaches to research; writing and learning about research.

Other references

Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. K. (1992) Qualitative Research For Education , Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Goetschius, G. and Tash, J. (1967) Working with the Unattached , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

McTaggart, R. (1996) ‘Issues for participatory action researchers’ in O. Zuber-Skerritt (ed.) New Directions in Action Research , London: Falmer Press.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (2003) You and Your Action Research Project 2e. London: Routledge.

Thomas, G. (2017). How to do your Research Project. A guide for students in education and applied social sciences . 3e. London: Sage.

Acknowledgements : spiral by Michèle C. | flickr ccbyncnd2 licence

How to cite this article : Smith, M. K. (1996; 2001, 2007, 2017) What is action research and how do we do it?’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education. [ https://infed.org/mobi/action-research/ . Retrieved: insert date] .

© Mark K. Smith 1996; 2001, 2007, 2017

Last Updated on December 7, 2020 by infed.org

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

Published on 27 January 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on 21 April 2023.

Table of contents

Types of action research, action research models, examples of action research, action research vs. traditional research, advantages and disadvantages of action research, frequently asked questions about action research.

There are 2 common types of action research: participatory action research and practical action research.

• Participatory action research emphasises that participants should be members of the community being studied, empowering those directly affected by outcomes of said research. In this method, participants are effectively co-researchers, with their lived experiences considered formative to the research process.
• Practical action research focuses more on how research is conducted and is designed to address and solve specific issues.

Both types of action research are more focused on increasing the capacity and ability of future practitioners than contributing to a theoretical body of knowledge.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Action research is often reflected in 3 action research models: operational (sometimes called technical), collaboration, and critical reflection.

• Operational (or technical) action research is usually visualised like a spiral following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”
• Collaboration action research is more community-based, focused on building a network of similar individuals (e.g., college professors in a given geographic area) and compiling learnings from iterated feedback cycles.
• Critical reflection action research serves to contextualise systemic processes that are already ongoing (e.g., working retroactively to analyse existing school systems by questioning why certain practices were put into place and developed the way they did).

Action research is often used in fields like education because of its iterative and flexible style.

After the information was collected, the students were asked where they thought ramps or other accessibility measures would be best utilised, and the suggestions were sent to school administrators. Example: Practical action research Science teachers at your city’s high school have been witnessing a year-over-year decline in standardised test scores in chemistry. In seeking the source of this issue, they studied how concepts are taught in depth, focusing on the methods, tools, and approaches used by each teacher.

Action research differs sharply from other types of research in that it seeks to produce actionable processes over the course of the research rather than contributing to existing knowledge or drawing conclusions from datasets. In this way, action research is formative , not summative , and is conducted in an ongoing, iterative way.

As such, action research is different in purpose, context, and significance and is a good fit for those seeking to implement systemic change.

Action research comes with advantages and disadvantages.

• Action research is highly adaptable , allowing researchers to mould their analysis to their individual needs and implement practical individual-level changes.
• Action research provides an immediate and actionable path forward for solving entrenched issues, rather than suggesting complicated, longer-term solutions rooted in complex data.
• Done correctly, action research can be very empowering , informing social change and allowing participants to effect that change in ways meaningful to their communities.

Disadvantages

• Due to their flexibility, action research studies are plagued by very limited generalisability  and are very difficult to replicate . They are often not considered theoretically rigorous due to the power the researcher holds in drawing conclusions.
• Action research can be complicated to structure in an ethical manner . Participants may feel pressured to participate or to participate in a certain way.
• Action research is at high risk for research biases such as selection bias , social desirability bias , or other types of cognitive biases .

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

Sources for this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2023, April 21). What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/action-research-cycle/

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th edition). Routledge.

Naughton, G. M. (2001).  Action research (1st edition). Routledge.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, primary research | definition, types, & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, what is an observational study | guide & examples.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Neag School of Education

Educational Research Basics by Del Siegle

Action research.

An Introduction to Action Research Jeanne H. Purcell, Ph.D.

 Your Options

• Review Related Literature
• Examine the Impact of an Experimental Treatment
• Monitor Change
• Identify Present Practices
• Describe Beliefs and Attitudes

Action Research Is…

• Action research is a three-step spiral process of (1) planning which involves fact-finding, (2) taking action, and (3) fact-finding about the results of the action. (Lewin, 1947)
• Action research is a process by which practitioners attempt to study their problems scientifically in order to guide, correct, and evaluate their decisions and action. (Corey, 1953).
• Action research in education is study conducted by colleagues in a school setting of the results of their activities to improve instruction. (Glickman, 1990)
• Action research is a fancy way of saying Let’s study what s happening at our school and decide how to make it a better place. (Calhoun,1994)

Conditions That Support Action Research

• A faculty where a majority of teachers wish to improve some aspect (s) of education in their school.
• Common agreement about how collective decisions will be made and implemented.
• A team that is willing to lead the initiative.
• Study groups that meet regularly.
• A basic knowledge of the action research cycle and the rationale for its use.
• Someone to provide technical assistance and/or support.

The Action Research Cycle

• Identify an area of interest/problem.
• Identify data to be collected, the format for the results, and a timeline.
• Collect and organize the data.
• Analyze and interpret the data.
• Decide upon the action to be taken.
• Evaluate the success of the action.

Collecting Data: Sources

Existing Sources

• Attendance at PTO meetings
• + and – parent communications
• Office referrals
• Special program enrollment
• Standardized scores

Inventive Sources

• Interviews with parents
• Library use, by grade, class
• Minutes of meetings
• Nature and amount of in-school assistance related to the innovation
• Number of books read
• Observation journals
• Record of peer observations
• Student journals
• Teacher journals
• Videotapes of students: whole class instruction
• Videotapes of students: Differentiated instruction
• Writing samples

Collecting Data: From Whom?

• From everyone when we are concerned about each student’s performance.
• From a sample when we need to increase our understanding while limiting our expenditure of time and energy; more in-depth interviews or observations may follow.

Collecting Data: How Often?

• At regular intervals
• At critical points

Collecting Data: Guidelines

• Use both existing and inventive data sources.
• Use multiple data sources.
• Collect data regularly.
• Seek help, if necessary.

Organizing Data

• Keep it simple.
• Disaggregate numbers from interviews and other qualitative types of data.
• Plan plenty of time to look over and organize the data.
• Seek technical assistance if needed.

Analyzing Data

• What important points do they data reveal?
• What patterns/trends do you note? What might be some possible explanations?
• Do the data vary by sources? Why might the variations exist?
• Are there any results that are different from what you expected? What might be some hypotheses to explain the difference (s)?
• What actions appear to be indicated?

Taking Action

• Do the data warrant action?
• What might se some short-term actions?
• What might be some long-term actions?
• How will we know if our actions have been effective?
• What benchmarks might we expect to see along the way to effectiveness ?

Action Plans

• Target date
• Responsibility
• Evidence of Effectiveness

Action Research Handout

Bibliography

Brubacher, J. W., Case, C. W., & Reagan, T. G. (1994). Becoming a reflective educator . Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press.

Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (1996). Teachers doing research . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Calhoun, Emily (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices . New York: Teachers College Press.

Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hubbard, R. S. & Power, B. M. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry . Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Lewin, K. (1947). Group decisions and social change. In Readings in social psychology . (Eds. T M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley). New York: Henry Holt.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Action research.

• Eileen S. Johnson Eileen S. Johnson Oakland University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.696
• Published online: 29 May 2020

Action research has become a common practice among educational administrators. The term “action research” was first coined by Kurt Lewin in the 1930s, although teachers and school administrators have long engaged in the process described by and formally named by Lewin. Alternatively known as practitioner research, self-study, action science, site-based inquiry, emancipatory praxis, etc., action research is essentially a collaborative, democratic, and participatory approach to systematic inquiry into a problem of practice within a local context. Action research has become prevalent in many fields and disciplines, including education, health sciences, nursing, social work, and anthropology. This prevalence can be understood in the way action research lends itself to action-based inquiry, participation, collaboration, and the development of solutions to problems of everyday practice in local contexts. In particular, action research has become commonplace in educational administration preparation programs due to its alignment and natural fit with the nature of education and the decision making and action planning necessary within local school contexts. Although there is not one prescribed way to engage in action research, and there are multiple approaches to action research, it generally follows a systematic and cyclical pattern of reflection, planning, action, observation, and data collection, evaluation that then repeats in an iterative and ongoing manner. The goal of action research is not to add to a general body of knowledge but, rather, to inform local practice, engage in professional learning, build a community practice, solve a problem or understand a process or phenomenon within a particular context, or empower participants to generate self-knowledge.

• action research cycle
• educational practice
• historical trends
• philosophical assumptions
• variations of action research

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 25 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

Action Research

• First Online: 29 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Robert E. White   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8045-164X 3 &
• Karyn Cooper 4  

1232 Accesses

Of all the methodologies that have, thus far, been discussed between the pages of this volume, perhaps none is more practical than action research. In fact, it is often referred to as “practitioner research,” “teacher research’ or “participatory action research.” Herr and Anderson (2005) claim that action researchers may occupy multiple positions, even simultaneously, as insiders and/or outsiders, depending on social or ideological constructs such as race, religion, political affiliation, social class, gender or sexual orientation. These affiliations (or exclusions) may also significantly influence the reality as captured through action research. As such, action researchers may greatly benefit from interrogating and identifying their multiple positionalites in order to understand and articulate tensions stemming from underlying roles and stances, and to “avoid the blind spots that come with unexamined beliefs” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 44).

No action without research, no research without action –Kurt Lewin (1946)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Action Evaluation Collaborative. (2016). Participatory action learning: Part 1 – Insights into a catalyst for transformative change . Retrieved August 12, 2019, from: https://actionevaluationcollaborative.exposure.co/participatory-action-learning# !

Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning . Blackwell.

Google Scholar  

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing personal effectiveness . Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective . Addison Wesley.

Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2004). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60 (10), 854–857. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662

Article   Google Scholar  

Blanning, T. C. W. (1998). The French revolution: Class war or culture clash? (2nd ed.). St. Martin’s Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Boog, B., Coenen, H., Keune, A. W. M., & Lammerts, R. (1996). Theory and practice of action research—With special reference to the Netherlands . Tilbury University Press.

Burns, A. R. (2015). Action research. In J. D. Brown & C. Coombe (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to research in language teaching and learning (1st ed., pp. 99–104). Cambridge University Press.

Calhoun, C. J. (2002). Contemporary sociological theory . Wiley-Blackwell.

Cammarota, J. (2011). From hopelessness to hope: Social justice pedagogy in urban education and youth development. Urban Education, 46 (4), 828–844.

Charles, L., & Ward, N. (2007). Generating change through research: Action research and its implications (Discussion Paper Series No. 10). Centre for Rural Economy Newcastle University.

Chisholm, R., & Elden, M. (1993). Features of emerging action research. Human Relations, 46 (2), 275–298.

Clifford Simplican, S. (2009) . Disabling democracy: How disability reconfigures deliberative democratic norms . APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper. Retrieved August 8, 2019, from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1451092

Corlett, S. (2012). Participant learning in and through research as reflexive dialogue: Being “struck” and the effects of recall. Management Learning, 44 (5), 453–469.

Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69 (1), 33–60.

de Koning, K., & Martin, M. (1996). Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences . Zed Books.

Dewey, J. (1897/2019). Moral principles in education and my pedagogic creed by John Dewey . Myers Education Press.

Dick, B. (1997). Action learning and action research. Retrieved August 12, 2019, from: http://www.aral.com.au/resources/actlearn.html

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change . Open University Press.

Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43 (2), 182–201.

Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research . Rowman & Littlefield.

Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, S., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.). (1996). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability . Sage.

Forsyth, D. R. (2019). Group dynamics . Cengage.

Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). Continuum.

French, W. L., & Bell, C. (1973). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement . Prentice-Hall.

Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change (2nd ed.). Sage.

Griffith, M. (2009). Action research for/as/mindful of social justice. In S. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 85–98). SAGE.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Habermas, J. (1962/1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society . MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society . Beacon Press.

Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K., Yarbrough, G. L., Russell, T. M., Borecky, C. M., McGahhey, R., Powell, J. L., III, Beavers, J., & Monte, E. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6 (2), 139–152.

Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition . Sage.

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty . Sage Publications Inc.

Howard-Grabman, L. (1996). ‘Planning together’: Developing community plans to address priority maternal and neonatal health problems in rural Bolivia. In K. de Koning & M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences (pp. 153–163). Zed Books.

Kavannagh, A., Daly, J., & Jolley, D. (2007). Research methods, evidence and public health. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 26 (4), 299–396.

Kemmis, S., & Carr, W. (1986/2002). Becoming critical: Education knowledge and action research . Routledge Falmer.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567–595). SAGE.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). Peter Lang.

Koshy, V. (2010). Action research for improving educational practice: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). Sage.

Lasch-Quinn, E. (2017). Race experts: How racial etiquette, sensitivity training and new age therapy hijacked the civil rights movement . Rowman & Littlefield.

LeCompte, M. (1995). Some notes on power, agenda, and voice: A researcher’s personal evolution toward critical collaboration research. In P. McLaren & J. Giarelli (Eds.), Critical theory and educational research (pp. 91–112). State University of New York Press.

Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “Field at a Given Time”. Psychological Review, 50 (3), 292–310.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4), 34–46.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1 , 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics . Harper & Row.

Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change . Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Maksimovic, J. (2010). Historical development of action research in social sciences. Factas Universitatis: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology & History, 9 (1), 119–124.

McCoy, D., Sanders, D., Baum, F., Narayan, T., & Legge, D. (2004). Pushing the international health research agenda towards equity and effectiveness. Lancet, 364 (9445), 1630–1631.

McNamara, C. (2006). Field guide to consulting and organizational development: A collaborative and systems approach to performance, change and learning . Authenticity Consulting.

McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice . Macmillan Education.

McTaggart, R. (1991). Action research: A short modern history . Deakin University Press.

Meyer, J. (2000). Using qualitative methods in health related action research. British Medical Journal, 320 (178). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7228.178

Mihăiloaie, C. (2014). What is the difference between single-loop and double-loop learning? Retrieved August 13, 2019, from: https://www.performancemagazine.org/what-is-the-difference-between-single-loop-and-double-loop-learning/

Monk, R. (1992). Wittgenstein: The duty of genius . Penguin.

O’Brien, R. (2001). Um exame da abordagem metodológica da pesquisa ação [An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research]. In R. Richardson (Ed.), Teoria e Prática da Pesquisa Ação [Theory and practice of action research]. João Pessoa, BR: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. (English version) Retrieved, August 8, 2019, from: http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html

Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2015). Organizational behavior in education: Leadership and school reform . Pearson.

Payrow Shabani, O. A. (2003). Democracy, power and legitimacy: The critical theory of Jürgen Habermas . University of Toronto Press.

Rahman, M. A. (2008). Some trends in the praxis of participatory action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research (2nd ed., pp. 49–62). Sage.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice . SAGE.

Riel, M. (2019). Understanding collaborative action research . Center For Collaborative Action Research, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA. Retrieved, August 12, 2019, from: http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html

Rogers, E. (1994). A history of communication study: A biological approach . The Free Press.

Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research . ASCD.

Smith, M. K. (2001). Kurt Lewin, groups, experiential learning and action research. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education . Retrieved, August 8, 2019, from; http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development . Heinemann.

Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Oetzel, J. G., & Minkler, M. (2017). On community-based participatory research. In N. Wallerstein, B. Duran, J. G. Oetzel, & M. Minkler (Eds.), Community-Based participatory research for health (3rd ed., pp. 3–16). Jossey-Bass.

Weng, F. (2014). Comparing the philosophy of Jürgen Habermas and Michel Foucault. Inquiries, 6 (9), 1–2.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge University Press.

Whitehead, J. (2009). Generating living theory and understanding in action research studies. Action Research, 7 (1), 85–99.

Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298–330). American Educational Research Association.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, Canada

Robert E. White

OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Karyn Cooper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert E. White .

Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade three classroom

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto

St. Francis Xavier University

Cooper, K. & White, R. E. (2006). Action research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade 3 classroom. Educational Action Research 14(1), 83-99.

This action research project on critical literacy in a high poverty area in Toronto, Canada becomes the practical backdrop for examining how critical literacy can be developed and applied in regular classroom situations. Educators identifying patterns within classrooms that prevent students from participating fully in all aspects of a democratic society may find models presented in this article useful for making curricula more inclusive.

Literacy failure leads to poor overall academic performance, immense loss of self-esteem and an accumulating lack of basic literacy skills needed for self-support and for making an economic contribution to society. While literacy can be defined in many ways in today’s society, it is reading failure that is currently the most significant issue along the literacy spectrum.

Reading failure and educational change are inextricably intertwined. In order to bolster literacy capacity, a prime place to begin is in the arena of educational reform. Education has undergone profound changes in the past few years as ministries of education, faculties of education, and school boards prepare teachers to respond to the needs of “all” children. In the province of Ontario, Canada, for example, all Grade Three students now participate in the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) Standardized tests. As well, a public school board in Ontario has compiled a Learning Opportunities Index (Toronto District School Board, 2001) which serves to indicate a “relative level of need” for over 450 elementary schools under its prevue. This Opportunities Index correlates with literacy scores from EQAO Tests and is used by the school district to profile low literacy levels for early learners from urban schools (Brown, 2001). Despite significant public expenditure on education, being part of the reading world is not a reality for many urban inner city children in lower socio-economic areas. While these learners are Ontario’s at-risk students, their situation has global parallels. Although local practices and global practices differ around the world, literacy requires a re-imaging in this era of reconstruction and development (Janks, 2000). This issue, then, is an international one: how can elementary teachers in urban schools best help at-risk learners in literacy education and thus their chances for future success in education and life?

One of those hundreds of urban elementary schools in this Canadian school board is the Sir Simon George Elementary School. This K-5 school has over 650 students, 48% female and 52 % male, with 12% born outside of Canada and 66% for whom English is not their primary language. Because Sir Simon George Elementary School scored poorly on the Board’s Learning Opportunities Index , the staff at Sir Simon George Elementary School recently has begun to come to come to grips with the issue. The staff has embraced a new vision for this school. In order to implement this vision, the school staff established several important changes in the hopes of reversing this school’s low educational ranking.

Professional development for classroom teachers on administering the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) constituted another significant change. By utilizing this assessment procedure, the school was able to obtain literacy baseline scores for all of its students. Furthermore, a school district primary literacy consultant, in concert with the school staff, designated a daily school-wide, two-hour time block for implementation of an early literacy program.

Literacy research is replete with accounts indicating that early intervention with at-risk students can effectively increase levels of literacy skills and comprehension. Such research suggests that a key to successful intervention is to provide students with programs that emphasize critical thinking strategies (Anyon, 1980; Gunning, 2000; Slavin, 1998).

Critical literacy can be separated from the notion of critical thinking in the following way. Luke (1997) notes that critical approaches to literacy involve “a shift away from psychological and individualistic models of reading and writing towards those approaches that use sociological, cultural and discourse theory to reconceptualise the literate subject, textual practices, and classroom pedagogy” (143). He goes on to state that:

Critical approaches are characterized by a commitment to reshape literacy education in the interests of marginalized groups of learners, who on the basis of gender, cultural and socioeconomic background have been excluded from access to the discourses and texts of dominant economics and cultures (Luke, 1997, p.143).

This definition of critical literacy is supported by Gee (1996) and Edelsky and Cherland (2006). Although critical literacy and critical thinking are not necessarily the same thing, Luke (1997) suggests that “shared across contemporary approaches to critical literacy is an emphasis on the need for literates to take an interventionist approach to texts and discourses of all media” (critical literacy) and also requires “a commitment to the capacity to critique, transform and reconstruct dominant modes of information” (critical thinking) (p. 150).

Teachers and researchers, therefore, need to understand the complex relationship between language and power. Research indicates that teacher-generated research provides teachers with a strong feeling of ownership of both the process and results, and increases their own professional development (Carson & Sumara; 1997; Hannay, 1989, 1995; McNiff, 1993). However, despite all the attention given to strategic skill development for at-risk learners and attention given to the ways in which teachers acquire their professional knowledge, teachers’ reflections upon the teaching and learning process has received little attention. In spite of much of the rhetoric on school reform , it is painfully apparent that we do not actively value the insights and interpretations of teachers, and it is precisely these insights and interpretations that can effectively improve not only literacy levels as well as comprehension but critical literacy strategies as well. For these reasons, the staff approached this research team for assistance in the development of a critical literacy action research project.

The critical literacy action research project

In the Fall of 2001, Sir Simon George Elementary School staff invited the research team to participate in a multi-year action research project, the focus of which was school wide literacy improvement. The research team consisted of the co-authors, a graduate research assistant, a school literacy co-ordinator and a school district primary literacy consultant. The role of this research team was to act as facilitators to work together with teachers to develop critical literacy capacity among the teachers and the entire research team. After the initial and obligatory staff meeting in which the research team was introduce and the project was addressed, the non-school based researchers worked together with teachers to design the process. From this, in conjunction with the school district primary literacy consultant, one teacher volunteered to design and incorporate lesson plans to address issues of critical literacy in her grade three classroom. This paper reports on the action research project on critical literacy that grew out of this initiative. The impact of this project on the teacher and researchers are reported on later in this paper.

The action research project reported here offers promise for on-going collaborative research into critical literacy for urban students who continue to be at a disadvantage as it pertains to literacy, comprehension and critical thinking. The purposes of this project were to:

Design a Steps to Action Plan (Mills, 2000) enabling them to effect positive educational change.

Assess the effects on student literacy levels of teaching the students critical literacy strategies,

Evaluate the effects of an action research strategy on teacher learning and professional development.

As a corollary to the purposes of the project the staff and administration, in conjunction with the research team, determined the objectives for this project as being:

To develop critical literacy strategies for both early at-risk learners and their teachers,

To improve literacy teachers’ professional judgment,

To implement, assess, and evaluate specific strategies of literacy teaching

To enhance elementary in-service teacher training to support school-wide literacy improvement, critical literacy strategies, and life-long learning.

The significance of this study lies not only in its school-initiated origins, but also in its potential to contribute to two interrelated areas:

Critical literacy strategies, by reflecting on how critical thinking and critical literacy is developed by a teacher, in concert with the research team, in an actual classroom for at-risk children;

Action research, particularly an in-depth look at one school’s effort to improve early literacy for at-risk students.

In the first year of this project much time was invested in outlining the parameters of the research project, including serious school-wide discussion, culminating in a joint initiative on the methods of literacy instruction for primary students (kindergarten through grade three) in the school. The program of research was based on the action research methodology loop, “act-reflect-revise” (Mills, 2000), with teachers and their students as they engaged in action research to select and implement suitable and appropriate practices for critical literacy, as defined by the teachers themselves.

At the school level, all research members participated in sessions to decide upon the foundations for the research project based on suitable and appropriate practices for building critical literacy capacities relating to primary urban students and their teachers (Comber, Thomson, Wells, 2001). All stages in the process were developed through consensus, with the research team acting as facilitators for the process. The teacher and the school district primary literacy consultant designed the lessons. Learning strategies such as KWL (Thompkins, 1998) and other reflective practices were included.

The “K-W-L” (what we KNOW—what we WANT to learn—what we have LEARNED) strategy for reflective thinking (Thompkins, 1998) is outlined below.

K What we KNOW (One’s preconceptions)

Based on my experience, I believe critical literacy can be described as.....

I am now thinking.....

W What we WANT to learn

I wonder.....

What would happen if.....

It’s funny how my students.....

How can I.....

L What we have LEARNED

Developing critical literacy capacities of students and teachers

Practice or strategy for developing critical literacy capacities within this component.....

When students are engaged in developing critical literacy capacities, it looks like.....

When students are engaged in developing critical literacy capacities, it sounds like.....

Perhaps (specific student) demonstrates the best response to this strategy because.....

Perhaps (specific student) demonstrates the weakest response to this strategy because...

For this student to assess his/her critical literacy capacity, what needs to happen?

The opportunity for revision (“Are revisions needed to be made to the action plan itself at this time?”) follows this reflection, which in turn produces a new action plan.

At the end of the first year of the study, the research participants reflected upon the action research project and planned for revision to the research process for the next year. The previously described K-W-L strategy provided the basis for the structure of the focus group reflections within the project. The Debbie Miller (2002) book, Reading with Meaning , was chosen by the participants in this project for its attention to establishing a framework for creating a culture and climate for critical literacy. This book is written by a teacher-researcher and reflects goals similar to the objectives of this critical action research project, providing goals both for teachers and students regarding how to think more deeply while at the same time working towards esteem-building and social agency (Luke, 1997). After the grade three teacher in the project highly endorsed the book, everyone in the project read sample chapters and agreed that it fit into an operative framework for beginning the project. The research team particularly liked the way in which Miller (2002) worked at enabling her students to become more experienced at making meaningful and thoughtful connections to the stories of their own lives so that they might become more adept at reading the broader context within which they live. Like Miller, it was the group’s belief, that the only way to develop responsibility in students is to allow them to practice it.

With the first year of the project behind them, the critical literacy action research project began in earnest. The staff felt comfortable with the planning process, and in September, the following questions were asked of the students of the grade three teacher who was part of the research team: “Why do people read?” “What do you see readers doing?” “Where do you see people reading?” These questions and other questions were used to establish connections with students’ lives and to develop a greater understanding of their own reading worlds in order to make the context of the project relevant to them.

Brainstorming with the large group and recording students’ thinking was an appropriate way to address the first question. In this way, the school district primary literacy consultant in collaboration with the grade three teacher and the research team began to outline the project with the grade three students. These questions, which framed the beginning work with students, revealed much about the children’s perspectives about reading and also assisted in the selection of relevant teaching materials.

By October, focus meetings followed the K-W-L format as previously described. For purposes of framing the discussion, one example from each KWL strategy for reflective thinking is presented below.

“K” Represents the Research Team’s Current Understanding of Critical Literacy

The collective research team realized early on that they needed to establish an understanding of the term “critical literacy”. The research team’s first discussion regarding preconceptions of what critical literacy means was timely, given Edelsky and Cherland’s (2006) concern about the popularization and appropriation of the term “critical” and the tendency to trivialize what critical literacy—and critical thinking—really means.

From the first meeting: On the meaning of critical literacy, it became clear that the research team in general was using a variety of definitions of critical literacy. The researchers referred the team to Luke (1997):

Whatever we are doing needs to be important to us and our belief structures. Otherwise, what are we doing it for? There needs to be some connection to ourselves for it to be meaningful practice.

Critical literacy is a way to view the world. It’s a key to a democratic education. It’s basic in terms of being critical oneself.

We all have different ideas of things in our own heads.... We might think that we are talking about the same thing, but we’re talking about different things altogether.

...sharing ownership and trusting...and trusting the students to be able to be responsible and to think

If teachers don’t ask themselves why, then how do they expect students to ask why? Many of the students in this particular situation are ESL students. We have had grade three students whom teachers were bringing forth as having difficulties. They were Canadian-born but were receiving ESL instruction and couldn’t be considered ESL students any more. We’re masking a problem that could be deeper than we realize.

This passage, taken from the first discussion concerning the need to define a critical literacy stance, points to the notion that “critical literacy” needs to be understood in terms of the dynamics of identity, context and teaching practices employed. Jamilla acknowledges how one’s own belief structures are connected to classroom practice. In speaking about her own identity as a young black teacher, she can begin to see traces of her identity rooted in and through her teaching practices in both explicit and implicit ways. Dianne connects this thought to the all-important roles that teachers play in helping to construct their students’ identities through the beliefs they carry about who the students are and what they believe the students are capable of. Suzanne reminds us of the need to understand the politics of the ‘local’ literacy context when she states that, “Many of our students in this particular situation are ESL students”. Suzanne speaks to the idea that the cultural and political run deep in literacy and that teachers need to be aware of these factors, particularly if they are concerned with all students, including “minority” students, gaining a chance to define themselves. Through this discussion, the team began to consider more deeply just how literacy practices used in educational settings serve to affirm or disaffirm a student’s sense of identity and ultimately a student’s chances for “success” in society.

This initial discussion reveals an important question relevant to a critical literacy stance: How do we, as teachers, learn to become more experienced so that we might learn to step outside of ourselves and our own identities to allow multiple identities in? Perhaps this entails the commitment to be continually vigilant concerning what conditions truly support literacy, particularly for children of poverty or for those who have been labeled “at-risk.” These are of course ideological considerations and cannot be dealt with in short order. However, through beginning with our own teaching practices, and acting locally, we believed that we might move from our local position to more global issues relevant in literacy education today.

At this point, it may be helpful to briefly look at how literacy has been constructed historically. The following definitions illustrate that literacy is storied according to changing economies, cultures, institutions and possible worlds.

A literate person is a person who can, with understanding, both read and write a short, simple statement on his everyday life (UNESCO, 1951).

Functional literacy is the ability to engage effectively in all those reading activities normally expected of a literate adult in his community (Hunter & Harman, 1979).

[Literacy is] using print and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential (Southam Literacy, 1987).

These definitions show that literacy is dynamic and that historical interpretations have driven and continue to drive what represents literacy. Thus what represents literacy is historically driven and both traces and influences our definitions of literacy and how we use it. As teachers/educators of literacy then, is it not incumbent upon educators to consider their role(s) in shaping the ‘construct’ of what it is that literacy embodies? Is it to ask, “Who is deemed to be a ‘literate’ individual, and by whom”, particularly in these times of a pluralistic milieu in the twenty-first century? If so, then it would seem that definitions must be chosen well. This re-evaluation of what constitutes literacy and, by extension, critical literacy, is driven by dramatic local and global change. Globalization has resulted in the domination of English (Janks, 2000) and Cummins (1995) has addressed questions raised by the cultural politics of English as an international language. The issue is at once global and local as so many of our students are English as a Second Language (ESL) learners, as borne out by the number of ESL students in this study. Chambers adds another dimension to the discussion:

To inhabit the multiplicity of cultural borders, historical temporalities and hybrid identities calls for a state of knowledge, an ethics of the intellect, an aperture in politics, able to acknowledge more than itself; a state of knowledge that is prepared to suffer modification and interrogation by what it neither possesses nor can claim as its own…and permits us to lend our ears to what is unsaid in the discourses we employ (Chambers, 1996, 50).

Chambers’ term, “ a state of knowledge” suggests a growing critical awareness of the need to acknowledge multiple identities within any enclosed system, including educational systems. The Chambers quotation is particularly important when considering a critical literacy stance because it embodies key elements of identity and context while considering a state of knowledge capable of “lending our ears to what is unsaid in the discourses [or teaching practices] we employ.”

In this particular school research context, the research team felt that policy-makers do not always define the rich cultural diversity of the children and parents in their school community favourably. While on the surface, multiculturalism is touted to be beneficial to student learning; there may be issues of prejudice and discrimination still hiding in the light. Sonia Nieto (1994) points to patterns that encourage students to move beyond mere tolerance in multicultural education. A quotation from one of the team members may best express this:

With talking about what you think and see with students, particularly impoverished students like those in our multicultural school, they’re often written off for various reasons.

Another team member expressed a similar idea in the following way:

Our children are incredibly capable but there is somehow a mismatch between the school’s version of intelligence and what is occurring at home.

The dispositional nature of critical thinking was described:

I’ve had students in Special Education who are very intelligent in terms of the way they use higher order thinking or critical literacy, but it is situational. Perhaps the key is to make critical thinking more dispositional than situational, thereby developing critical learning capacities that are derived from critical literacy.

Putting critical literacy into practice takes thought and hard work and the full time teacher is the one charged with the responsibility of being, accountable, effective and efficient. Shutz (2000) places this thought in context:

...what we are led to believe about ourselves, what we learn about how we are supposed to act, the ways we are taught to frame “problems” and even the tools of reason that we use to solve these problems, do not simply represent neutral skills but are in fact ways of forming us into particular kinds of subjects. ‘Power’ in this vision does not merely suppress or restrict but actually produces actions and desires (216).

If critical literacy is to promote democracy, social justice and equity in schools, then what circumstances need to arise in schools for an increase in democracy and shared power? Banks (1999) describes a pattern of four levels of multicultural curriculum that parallel the adoption of a critical literacy curriculum. It is often referred to as a critical literacy curriculum because its definition has expanded to include all students who tend to be marginalized socially or physically. The curriculum pattern tends to become increasingly more inclusive as the approach moves through the inclusion of ethnic heroes into the existing unchanged curriculum to an approach that includes all elements of the transformative approach but also requires students to make decisions and take action related to the concept, issue, or problem they have studied.

“W” Represents the Action Research Plan: What the Research Team is Seeking to Know

The grade three teacher on the project, Jamilla, wanted to examine the provincial language arts curriculum with an eye towards understanding patterns of how critical literacy is understood, mentioned and factored into the grade three Language Arts curriculum. She began by looking at specific and “global” expectations within sections of the Ontario Language Curriculum (1997). As the following example suggests, the language curriculum document consisted mainly of decontextualized skills. In fact, it was difficult to find language directly relevant to critical literacy practices. In particular, the section under reasoning and ‘critical’ thinking was problematic because, the skills were not only decontextualized, the term “critical” had been co-opted and misapplied (Edelsky and Cherland, 2006). The term “critical” no longer meant critical in many senses of the word. The following example from the grade three Language Arts curriculum, recently in use states:

Overall Expectations – Grade 3 Reading. By the end of Grade 3, students will:

read a variety of fiction and non-fiction materials (e.g., chapter books, children’s reference books) for different purposes;

read independently, using a variety of reading strategies;

express clear responses to written materials, relating the ideas in them to their own knowledge and experience and to ideas in other materials that they have read;

select material that they need from a variety of sources;

understand the vocabulary and language structures appropriate for this grade level;

Use conventions of written materials to help them understand and use the materials.

Patterns of critical approaches to curriculum range from the encouragement of students to engage in explicit criticism of cultural, economic, and political structures to more neutral approaches which affiliate literacy with individuals’ “thinking skills” and the weighting of information (Luke and Walton, 1994). It is these “thinking skills”, rather than the “explicit criticism of cultural, economic and political structures” that tend to be emphasized in curriculum guides. In the example below, critical thinking has been largely reduced to data organization.

Expectations in Specific Areas. By the end of Grade 3, students will:

Despite this approach to literacy education, as presented in the grade three Language Arts curriculum, in practical terms the research team struggled with how the literacy curriculum might be a useful guide for students, particularly when all shared the belief that the students were capable language learners and the team wanted to honor this in their teaching practices. Is the key to using curricular documents to first be cognizant of language patterns used to structure these documents? That is to say, must one become more literate in one’s own understanding of these documents? What research does the document rest on? What belief structures are inherent in the teaching practices espoused within this document? How is language learning understood? For example, is it anchored in development stage theory? Cultural studies theory? Ultimately, what are the purposes of literacy and who gets to define these purposes? And why? Moreover, team members in the study often commented on the tension between the need for teaching explicit skill instruction and critical literacy practices:

“What kinds of things do you do when you come to a word you don’t know?” and it took me about twenty minutes to get them to say something other than “sounding out”.... So I just have to look at the problem more deeply because they don’t look at it as the “big picture”. Decoding and comprehension go together.... But they think, “If I have a problem with reading, it’s because I don’t know what that word says. It’s about that word or these lists of words that I have to know.”... This is the piece that we need to help them understand - the whole and I’m having a problem with this part here by just letting them be aware of the things they need to do to get to the next level, instead of keeping it a secret that only the teacher knows (Jamilla).

It makes sense to wrap the strategies they need to know around it, such as decoding, and to understand their thinking processes. We’d have to have an open dialogue with them whether it be direct skill instruction or crit. lit. (Dianne).

In reading this text, some readers may imagine that this is all well and good but what about teaching reading and writing skills? Of course this is a valid concern, particularly given that so many students continue to fail in school despite the concerted efforts of educators. Rather than fuel the ‘either/or’ debate over whether the central purposes of literacy education should focus on strategic reading or reading to make sense of life, perhaps a literacy model that incorporates both sides of the debate is useful. Freebody and Luke (1990) add to this discussion through their conceptualization of literate practices as involving four roles—code-breaker, meaning-maker, text user and text analyst. Being a code breaker involves understanding the sound symbol relationship and the alphabetic principles. Being text participant or “meaning-maker” calls upon the reader to draw inferences, using background knowledge to fill out unexplicated aspects of the text. Being a text user means knowing how to use a variety of texts for a variety of purposes in real life situations—For example, reading instructions on a soup can versus writing a friendly letter versus reading instructions on how to put a piece of complex equipment together. Being a text analyst means applying critical discourse analysis and asking questions about absences in texts, how gendered cultural storylines work across texts, who texts are written for, who benefits from a particular storyline and how might it have been written differently.

To return to the previous teaching event involving Jamilla’s concern regarding the teaching of explicit skills and critical literacy practices, the role of meaning-maker and text analyst were the literacy practices that were deliberately invoked. Although the role of code breaker was used earlier in the day through such literacy practices as the morning message and making words, some students spontaneously modeled the role of text-user.

Bearing this in mind, reflections on the first of a series of fifteen-minute mini-lessons with the students were also based on the “K-W-L” strategy. This was accomplished by specifically tying critical literacy into the curriculum guidelines by accessing students’ prior knowledge of what their experiences of critical literacy were like. This lesson dealt with “Looking at the Big Picture” —referring back to Jamilla’s earlier comment that the students do not see the ‘big picture’, meaning that the students do not often discuss patterns of exclusion or marginalization or understand the social context of reading—through a large-group brainstorming session with the children. Examples of priming questions were, “Why do people need to learn to read”? and “Does everyone [around the world] have the same chance to learn to read”? Responses were recorded on a wall chart.

An additional critical literacy pedagogic activity was developed around “How to chose a book for reading.” Connections were made with students by discussing books about social issues. Again brainstorming was used to identify strategies for selecting an appropriate book for independent reading. These strategies were recorded on another chart. A third theme dealt with decoding strategies, discussed earlier, through the priming question of “What do you do when you come to a word you don’t know?” Strategies were recorded on an additional chart so that the students would begin to articulate more strategies than just “sounding out.” This follows up on similar work already happening in the classroom, allowing Jamilla to find the balance that she was seeking between engaging children in critical literacy and explicit literacy skills teaching.

A further fifteen-minute mini-lesson set the routines for “Sharing and Celebrating” by recording different thinking strategies. As we worked with students on an ongoing basis, their ideas were recorded on a chart called “Strategies for Sharing Our Thinking.” Miller (2002) calls this “Making Tracks of Our Thinking.” The priming critical question for this instance of meta-cognitive thinking was “What does thinking about reading look like, sound like and feel like?” It was revealing to see the students’ thinking as we learned together throughout the project.

Mohammed, for example, suggested that the “teacher reminds us that we can use anything in our life” in order to learn. He goes on to note that TV has helped him make connections to literature and he went on to talk about how Muslims are now patterned as “the bad guys” in the “big news” story because of 9/11. Mohammed takes this personally and makes connections to patterns in the world he knows (Delpit, 1995). As an immigrant, new to Canada and a Muslim, Mohammed’s comment reveals his own feeling of insecurity on a global level, but also shows how safe he feels in being able to reveal his feelings on the local level, within his classroom.

Mohammed’s grade three teacher acknowledges that many of her students watch a lot of television. However, she attempts to help them be more critical or discerning in their choices of programs to watch and how to critique systems of domination. In other words, Jamilla recognizes that television is the foremost source of information available to many children living in poverty, and otherwise, and is working towards the development of agency in her students.

One of the dilemmas encountered by both teachers and instructors, interested in the promotion of critical literacy in teacher education programs, revolves around how to keep the dialogue hopeful when one begins to question socially patterned constructions of “the truth”. This may necessitate a curriculum for learning that allows students to understand not only the message that is presented, but also to make connections and develop patterns with their own lives and lived experiences (Cooper and White, 2004).

The following spontaneous piece of writing is an example of a poem from Erina, a grade three student. Entitled “A Poem about Hope,” this poem is dedicated to her teachers.

Verse A Poem about Hope Don’t look in the stocking’s or under the tree. The thing that we’re looking for is something we can’t see. You can’t feel it or tuch it but it will tuch you it move’s with you grow’s with you. It will always follow you. It’s deeper then snow stronger then ice. The gift that we resev is the gift of hope. – Erina (8 years of age)

By the end of this “W” phase of the K-W-L strategy for reflective thinking, in conjunction with the research team, Jamilla, the grade three teacher, had identified what she wanted to learn. She wanted the research team to help clarify her understanding of the word “critical”, what critical literacy is like in practice and how to use the curriculum document to reflect her own teaching practice. Examining underlying assumptions of the literacy curriculum was not a bad place to begin. Constructing lessons that evoked questions about student understandings about the social context of literacy followed.

Inglis and Willinsky (2006) remind us of the importance of revisiting current thinking about democracy in order to consider what constitutes democracy in action. At the heart of our actions and in those teachable moments rests the need for continuous critical reflection. The “W” in our reflection strategy, then, is useful only in as much as it provides the pattern or the framework to continually ask those difficult questions so fundamental to critical literacy and a democratic education for all students. This takes humility and desire or, perhaps as Erina suggests, hope which is deeper than snow or ice.

“L” Represents Critical Literacy: What the Research Team Learned

The research recounted above suggests a need to continue to challenge patterns that promote taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in existing orthodoxies that comprise research and teaching practice. This may be accomplished through re-framing questions to examine not only what has been offered but also what has been missing. Delpit (1998) points out that the key may be to understand the variety of meanings available for any human interaction, and not to assume that the voice of majority speaks for all. In this study about critical literacy for urban school children, the research team began to notice where students’ voices were excluded from issues that affected them in particular. For example, Suzanne reminded us of the need to understand the politics of the ‘local’ literacy context, “Many of our students in this particular situation are ESL students”, and their voices may not be able to be heard. Cultural and political patterns run deep in literacy and teachers need to be aware of this if they are to be concerned with all students, including “minority” students, gaining a chance to define themselves.

Further, in this study, Jamilla, the grade three teacher on the project, was keen to examine how the provincial language arts curriculum could be used as a document to encourage the use of critical literacy strategies. Jamilla’s questioning helped the research team to understand that, while schools have been fairly successful at teaching essential literacies, such as code-breakers and text participants (Vasquez, 2000), schools and their policy makers may not adequately support the role of text analyst, a potential critical literacy strategy, which may help all students understand how the text positions them with respect to social patterns of power that include language usage. This occurs because the pattern of curricular language appropriates and neutralizes potentially critical literacy strategies. The research team learned that perhaps the key to using curricular documents is to recognize how language patterns are used to structure these documents. To become more literate in one’s own understanding of these documents may be to ask such questions as: How is language learning understood? What belief structures are inherent in the teaching practices espoused within this document? What research does the document rest on? Is the document anchored in a specific perspective of education theory? Ultimately, what are the purposes of literacy, of education, and who gets to define these purposes? And why?

Given that an important goal of critical literacy is to give voice to critical approaches to reshape literacy education in the interests of marginalized learners excluded from access to dominant economics and cultures (Luke 1997), it is understandably difficult to ensure that the role the text analyst and other critically literate roles are valued in the classroom. Perhaps, as Heffernan and Lewison (2000) suggest, teachers are frequently discouraged from using their positions of power to persuade students to adopt certain positions. As teachers struggle to keep their opinions to themselves, they may exclude important issues, in favour of the dominant curriculum. This reluctance was evident in the research team itself. If students do not gain from mandated curriculum or policies relating to the development of critical literacy, directly or over the long term, such curricular policies may not be useful educational policies. It is incumbent upon all educators to be able and willing to develop, identify and implement curricular policies that are inclusive, for the benefit of all students.

To this end, Banks (1999) describes four levels of a curriculum that is sensitive to issues of inclusion. The first level, “The Contributions Approach” is probably the most frequently utilized form of multicultural education, and is characterized by the addition of ethnic heroes. The curriculum remains essentially unchanged. Little attention is given to the ethnic groups either before or after the event, nor is the cultural significance or history of the event explored in any depth. Social issues are ignored and this approach represents a rather shallow look at culture and inclusive practices.

The second and third levels represent the first phase of curriculum restructuring, yet issues are presented from a dominant perspective. Individuals or groups of people from marginalized groups in society are included, yet racial and cultural inequities or oppression are not necessarily addressed. A teacher might introduce a unit by studying groups who are benefiting from or being disadvantaged by the implementation of certain policies and practices, in the absence of a complete transformation of the curriculum.

The fourth approach includes elements of the previous three approach but adds components that require students to make decisions and to take action related to the concept, issue, or problem they have studied. This approach requires that students not only explore and understand the dynamics of oppression, but also commit to making decisions and changing the system through social action. The major goal of this approach is to teach students thinking and decision making skills, to empower them, and help them acquire a sense of political awareness and efficacy.

Banks’ (1999) description of these four levels may be useful for teachers who wish to benefit their students by becoming more enlightened about established patterns in which their own self-understandings prevent them from being properly or appropriately aware of social and political mechanisms.

If a central aim of education can become the critical transmission, interpretation and development of the cultural traditions of our society, there is the need for a form of research that focuses its energies and resources on the policies, processes and practices by which this aim is pursued (Carr and Kemmis, 1989). While there is still a battle raging within the field of literacy over the central goals of literacy education (For a more complete discussion, see Short, 1999), struggling literacy students are at the heart of much of what we do as literacy educators and this struggle is manifested in the following questions: What conditions truly support literacy learning in the pluralistic milieu of the twenty-first century? How do literacy practices used in educational settings serve to affirm or disaffirm a student’s own sense of identity? Why consider identity and language teaching in the same breath?

Such questions serve to flag the notion that outside pressures, a globalized society notwithstanding, are being brought to bear on curricula and programs provided by Canadian schools, and potentially, in schools world-wide. At issue is the problem of “recognizing patterns” in order to develop a critical awareness to understand what is truly important in our schools and to develop standards around such critical ideas as what it is we are doing, why we are doing it and who the major benefactors of these transactions are. There is, therefore, a need for a critical literacy capable of recognizing such patterns, asking questions about innate standards such as curriculum documents, and asking about what is important to schooling. These voices, in order to be heard must respect the notion of a democratic education not just for some citizens but for all citizens. Hopeful trends are beginning to emerge. Changes, and dare we say improvements, are being made in individual classrooms and within schools as well.

Banks, J. (1999). An introduction to multicultural education . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice . Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1989). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research . London & Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

Chambers, I. (1996). The post-colonial question: Common skies, divided horizons. London : Routledge.

Comber, B., Thomson, P. & Wells, M. (2001). Critical literacy finds a place: Writing and social action in a low-income Australian grade two/three classroom . Elementary School Journal 101 (4), 451-464.

Cummins, J. (1995). Heritage language teaching in Canadian schools. In O. Garcia and C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education: Extending the foundation , (pp. 134-138). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.

Delpit, L. (1998). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in education of other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58 (3), 280-298.

Edelsky C. & Cherland, M. (2006). A critical issue in Critical Literacy: The “Popularity Effect.” In K. Cooper & R. E. White (Eds.), The practical critical educator. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1990). “Literacies” programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: the Journal of Adult Migrant Education Programs, 5 (30), 7-16.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

Janks, H. (2000). Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis for critical literacy education. Educational Review, 52 (2), pp. 175-186.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Heffernan, A., & Lewison, M. (2000). Making real-world issues our business: Critical literacy in a third-grade classroom. Primary Voices, K-6, 9 (2), pp. 15-21.

Hunter, C. S. & Harmon, D. (1979). Adult illiteracy in the United States: A report to the Ford Foundation . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Luke, A. (1997). Critical approaches to literacy. In V. Edwards & D. Corson (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 2: Literacy (143-151). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Luke, A & Walton, C. (1994). Critical reading: Teaching and assessing. In T. Hansen & T. N. Postlewaite (Eds.) International encyclopaedia of education, 2nd Edition, (1194-1198) . Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in the primary grades . Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Mills, G. E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nieto, S. (1994). Affirmation, solidarity, and critique: Moving beyond tolerance in multicultural education. Multicultural Education, Spring 1994, pp 9-38.

Ontario Curriculum Grades 1-8, Language. (1997). Ontario: Ministry of Education and Training.

Short, K. (1999). The search for “balance” in a literature-rich curriculum. Theory into Practice 38 (3). 130-137.

Shutz, A. (2000). Teaching freedom? Postmodern perspectives. Review of Educational Research 70 (2), 215-251.

Southam Literacy, (1987). In P. Calamai. Broken words: Why five million Canadians are illiterate. Toronto, ON: Southam Press.

Thompkins, G. E. (1998). 50 Literacy strategies: Step by step. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

UNESCO (1951). A definition of fundamental education. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13136&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Vasquez, V. (2000). Our way: Using the everyday to create a critical literacy curriculum. Primary Voice, K-6, 9 (2), pp 8-13.

The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge Dianne Riehl, Jamilla Arindell, Cindy Bird, Suzanne Thomson and the grade three students at “Sir Simon George” Elementary School for their assistance with this project. Pseudonyms were deemed unnecessary by the research team.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

White, R.E., Cooper, K. (2022). Action Research. In: Qualitative Research in the Post-Modern Era. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_10

Published : 29 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85126-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85124-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

Action Research

What is action research.

Action research is a methodology that emphasizes collaboration between researchers and participants to identify problems, develop solutions and implement changes. Designers plan, act, observe and reflect, and aim to drive positive change in a specific context. Action research prioritizes practical solutions and improvement of practice, unlike knowledge generation, which is the priority of traditional methods.  

© New Mexico State University, Fair Use

Why is Action Research Important in UX Design?

Action research stands out as a unique approach in user experience design (UX design), among other types of research methodologies and fields. It has a hands-on, practical focus, so UX designers and researchers who engage in it devise and execute research that not only gathers data but also leads to actionable insights and solid real-world solutions. 

The concept of action research dates back to the 1940s, with its roots in the work of social psychologist Kurt Lewin. Lewin emphasized the importance of action in understanding and improving human systems. The approach rapidly gained popularity across various fields, including education, healthcare, social work and community development.  

Kurt Lewin, the Founder of social psychology.

© Wikimedia Commons, Fair Use

In UX design, the incorporation of action research appeared with the rise of human-centered design principles. As UX design started to focus more on users' needs and experiences, the participatory and problem-solving nature of action research became increasingly significant. Action research bridges the gap between theory and practice in UX design. It enables designers to move beyond hypothetical assumptions and base their design decisions on concrete, real-world data. This not only enhances the effectiveness of the design but also boosts its credibility and acceptance among users—vital bonuses for product designers and service designers. 

At its core, action research is a systematic, participatory and collaborative approach to research . It emphasizes direct engagement with specific issues or problems and aims to bring about positive change within a particular context. Traditional research methodologies tend to focus solely on the generation of theoretical knowledge. Meanwhile, action research aims to solve real-world problems and generate knowledge simultaneously .  

Action research helps designers and design teams gather first-hand insights so they can deeply understand their users' needs, preferences and behaviors. With it, they can devise solutions that genuinely address their users’ problems—and so design products or services that will resonate with their target audiences. As designers actively involve users in the research process, they can gather authentic insights and co-create solutions that are both effective and user-centric.  

Moreover, the iterative nature of action research aligns perfectly with the UX design process. It allows designers to continuously learn from users' feedback, adapt their designs accordingly, and test their effectiveness in real-world contexts. This iterative loop of planning, acting, observing and reflecting ensures that the final design solution is user-centric. However, it also ensures that actual user behavior and feedback validates the solution that a design team produces, which helps to make action research studies particularly rewarding for some brands. 

Designers can continuously learn from users’ feedback in action research and iterate accordingly.

© Fauxels, Fair Use

What is The Action Research Process?

Action research in UX design involves several stages. Each stage contributes to the ultimate goal: to create effective and user-centric design solutions. Here is a step-by-step breakdown of the process:  

1. Identify the Problem

This could be a particular pain point users are facing, a gap in the current UX design, or an opportunity for improvement.  

2. Plan the Action

Designers might need to devise new design features, modify existing ones or implement new user interaction strategies.  

3. Implement the Action

Designers put their planned actions into practice. They might prototype the new design, implement the new features or test the new user interaction strategies.  

4. Observe and Collect Data

As designers implement the action they’ve decided upon, it's crucial to observe its effects and collect data. This could mean that designers track user behaviors, collect user feedback, conduct usability tests or use other data collection methods.  

5. Reflect on the Results

From the collected data, designers reflect on the results, analyze the effectiveness of the action and draw insights. If the action has led to positive outcomes, they can further refine it and integrate it into the final design. If not, they can go back to plan new actions and repeat the process.  

An action research example could be where designers do the following: 

Identification : Designers observe a high abandonment rate during a checkout process for an e-commerce website. 

Planning : They analyze the checkout flow to identify potential friction points.  

Action : They isolate these points, streamline the checkout process, introduce guest checkout and optimize form fields.  

Observation : They monitor changes in abandonment rates and collect user feedback.  

Reflection : They assess the effectiveness of the changes as these reduce checkout abandonment.  

Outcome : The design team notices a significant decrease in checkout abandonment, which leads to higher conversion rates as more users successfully purchase goods.  

What Types of Action Research are there?

Action research splits into three main types: technical, collaborative and critical reflection.  

1. Technical Action Research

Technical action research focuses on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of a system or process. Designers often use it in organizational contexts to address specific issues or enhance operations. This could be where designers improve the usability of a website, optimize the load time of an application or enhance the accessibility of a digital product.  

• Transcript loading…

2. Collaborative Action Research

Collaborative action research emphasizes the active participation of stakeholders in the research process. It's about working together to identify issues, co-create solutions and implement changes. In the context of UX design, this could mean that designers collaborate with users to co-design a new feature, work with developers to optimize a process, or partner with business stakeholders to align the UX strategy with business goals.  

3. Critical Reflection Action Research

Critical reflection action research aims to challenge dominant power structures and social injustices within a particular context. It emphasizes the importance of where designers and design teams reflect on the underlying assumptions and values that drive research and decision-making processes. In UX design, this could be where designers question the design biases, challenge the stereotypes, and promote inclusivity and diversity in design decisions.  

What are the Benefits and Challenges of Action Research?

Like any UX research method or approach, action research comes with its own set of benefits and challenges.  

Benefits of Action Research

Real-world solutions.

Action research focuses on solving real-world problems. This quality makes it highly relevant and practical. It allows UX designers to create solutions that are not just theoretically sound but also valid in real-world contexts.  

User Involvement

Action research involves users in the research process, which lets designers gather first-hand insights into users' needs, preferences and behaviors. This not only enhances the accuracy and reliability of the research but also fosters user engagement and ownership long before user testing of high-fidelity prototypes.  

Continuous Learning

The iterative nature of action research promotes continuous learning and improvement. It enables designers to adapt their designs based on users' feedback and learn from their successes and failures. They can fine-tune better tools and deliverables, such as more accurate user personas, from their findings.

Author and Human-Computer Interaction Expert, Professor Alan Dix explains personas and why they are important: 

Challenges of Action Research

Time- and resource-intensive.

Action research involves multiple iterations of planning, acting, observing and reflecting, which can be time- and resource-intensive. 

Complexity of Real-world Contexts

It can be difficult to implement changes and observe their effects in real-world contexts. This is due to the complexity and unpredictability of real-world situations.  

Risk of Subjectivity

Since action research involves close collaboration with stakeholders, there's a risk of subjectivity and bias influencing the research outcomes. It's crucial for designers to maintain objectivity and integrity throughout the research process. 

Ethical Considerations

It can be a challenge to ensure all participants understand the nature of the research and agree to participate willingly. Also, it’s vital to safeguard the privacy of participants and sensitive data.  

Scope Creep

The iterative nature of action research might lead to expanding goals, and make the project unwieldy.  

Generalizability

The contextual focus of action research may limit the extent to which designers can generalize findings from field studies to other settings.  

Best Practices and Tips for Successful Action Research

1. define clear objectives.

To begin, designers should define clear objectives. They should ask the following: 

What is the problem to try to solve? 

What change is desirable as an outcome?  

To have clear objectives will guide their research process and help them stay focused.  

2. Involve Users

It’s vital to involve users in the research process. Designers should collaborate with them to identify issues, co-create solutions and implement changes in real time. This will not only enhance the relevance of the research but also foster user engagement and ownership.  

3. Use a Variety of Data Collection Methods

To conduct action research means to observe the effects of changes in real-world contexts. This requires a variety of data collection methods. Designers should use methods like surveys, user interviews, observations and usability tests to gather diverse and comprehensive data. 

UX Strategist and Consultant, William Hudson explains the value of usability testing in this video: 

4. Reflect and Learn

Action research is all about learning from action. Designers should reflect on the outcomes of their actions, analyze the effectiveness of their solutions and draw insights. They can use these insights to inform their future actions and continuously improve the design.  

5. Communicate and Share Findings

Lastly, designers should communicate and share their findings with all stakeholders. This not only fosters transparency and trust but also facilitates collective learning and improvement.  

What are Other Considerations to Bear in Mind with Action Research?

Quantitative data.

Action research involves both qualitative and quantitative data, but it's important to remember to place emphasis on qualitative data. While quantitative data can provide useful insights, designers who rely too heavily on it may find a less holistic view of the user experience. 

Professor Alan Dix explains the difference between quantitative and qualitative data in this video: 

User Needs and Preferences

Designers should focus action research on understanding user needs and preferences. If they ignore these in favor of more technical considerations, the resulting design solutions may not meet users' expectations or provide them with a satisfactory experience.  

User Feedback

It's important to seek user feedback at each stage of the action research process. Without this feedback, designers may not optimize design solutions for user needs. For example, they may find the information architecture confusing. Additionally, without user feedback, it can be difficult to identify any unexpected problems that may arise during the research process.  

Time Allocation

Action research requires time and effort to ensure successful outcomes. If designers or design teams don’t permit enough time for the research process, it can lead to rushed decisions and sloppy results. It's crucial to plan ahead and set aside enough time for each stage of the action research process—and ensure that stakeholders understand the time-consuming nature of research and digesting research findings, and don’t push for premature results. 

Contextual Factors

Contextual factors such as culture, environment and demographics play an important role in UX design. If designers ignore these factors, it can lead to ineffective design solutions that don't properly address users' needs and preferences or consider their context.  

Professor Alan Dix explains the need to consider users’ culture in design, in this video: 

Copyright holder: Tommi Vainikainen _ Appearance time: 2:56 - 3:03 Copyright license and terms: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Copyright holder: Maik Meid _ Appearance time: 2:56 - 3:03 Copyright license and terms: CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons _ Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norge_93.jpg

Copyright holder: Paju _ Appearance time: 2:56 - 3:03 Copyright license and terms: CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons _ Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kaivokselan_kaivokset_kyltti.jpg

Copyright holder: Tiia Monto _ Appearance time: 2:56 - 3:03 Copyright license and terms: CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons _ Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turku_-_harbour_sign.jpg

Overall, in the ever-evolving field of UX design, this is one methodology that can serve as a powerful research tool for driving positive change and promoting continuous learning. Since to do action research means to actively involve users in the research process and research projects, and focus on real-world problem-solving, it allows designers to create more user-centered designs. These digital solutions and services will be more likely to resonate with the target users and deliver exceptional user experiences.  

Despite its challenges, the benefits of action research far outweigh the risks. Action research is therefore a valuable approach for UX designers who are keen on creating a wide range of impactful and sustainable design solutions. The biggest lesson with action research is to ensure that user needs and preferences are at the center of the research process. 

Learn More about Action Research  

Take our User Research: Methods and Best Practices course.  

Take our Master Class Radical Participatory Design: Insights From NASA’s Service Design Lead with Victor Udoewa, Service Design Lead, NASA SBIR/STTR Program. 

Read more in-depth information in 3 things design thinking can learn from action research by Amin Mojtahedi, PhD . 

Find additional insights in What Technical Communicators and UX Designers Can Learn From Participatory Action Research by Guiseppe . 

Discover more insights and tips in Action Research: Steps, Benefits, and Tips by Lauren Stewart .

Questions related to Action Research

Action research and design thinking are both methodologies to solve problems and implement changes, but they have different approaches and emphases. Here's how they differ:  

Objectives  

Action research aims to solve specific problems within a community or organization through a cycle of planning, action, observation and reflection. It focuses on iterative learning and solving real-world problems through direct intervention.  

Design thinking focuses on addressing complex problems by understanding the user's needs, re-framing the problem in human-centric ways, creating many ideas in brainstorming sessions, and adopting a hands-on approach in prototyping and testing. It emphasizes innovation and the creation of solutions that are desirable, feasible and viable.  

Process  

Action research involves a cyclic process that includes:  

- Identify a problem.  

- Plan an action.  

- Implement the action.  

- Observe and evaluate the outcomes.  

- Reflect on the findings and plan the next cycle. 

Design thinking follows a non-linear, iterative process that typically includes five phases:  

- Empathize: Understand the needs of those you're designing for.  

- Define: Clearly articulate the problem you want to solve.  

- Ideate: Brainstorm a range of creative solutions.  

- Prototype: Build a representation of one or more of your ideas.  

- Test: Return to your original user group and test your idea for feedback.  

User Involvement  

Action research actively involves participants in the research process. The participants are co-researchers and have a direct stake in the problem at hand.  

Design thinking prioritizes empathy with users and stakeholders to ensure that the solutions are truly user-centered. While users are involved, especially in the empathy and testing phases, they may not be as deeply engaged in the entire process as they are in action research.  

Outcome  

Action research typically aims for practical outcomes that directly improve practices or address issues within the specific context studied. Its success is measurable by the extent of problem resolution or improvement.  

Design thinking seeks to generate innovative solutions that may not only solve the identified problem but also provide a basis for new products, services or ways of thinking. The success is often measurable in terms of innovation, user satisfaction and feasibility of implementation.  

In summary, while both action research and design thinking are valuable in addressing problems, action research is more about participatory problem-solving within specific contexts, and design thinking is about innovative solution-finding with a strong emphasis on user needs. 

Take our Design Thinking: The Ultimate Guide course. 

To define the research question in an action research project, start by identifying a specific problem or area of interest in your practice or work setting. Reflect on this issue deeply to understand its nuances and implications. Then, narrow your focus to a question that is both actionable and researchable. This question should aim to explore ways to improve, change or understand the problem better. Ensure the question is clear, concise and aligned with the goals of your project. It must invite inquiry and suggest a path towards finding practical solutions or gaining deeper insights. 

For instance, if you notice a decline in user engagement with a product, your research question could be, "How can we modify the user interface of our product to enhance user engagement?" This question clearly targets an improvement, focuses on a specific aspect (the user interface) and implies actionable outcomes (modifications to enhance engagement). 

Take our Master Class Radical Participatory Design: Insights From NASA’s Service Design Lead with Victor Udoewa, Service Design Lead, NASA SBIR/STTR Program.  

Designers use several tools and methods in action research to explore problems and implement solutions. Surveys allow them to gather feedback from a broad audience quickly. Interviews offer deep insights through personal conversations, focusing on users' experiences and needs. Observations help designers understand how people interact with products or services in real environments. Prototyping enables the testing of ideas and concepts through tangible models, and allows for immediate feedback and iteration. Finally, case studies provide detailed analysis of specific instances and offer valuable lessons and insights. 

These tools and methods empower designers to collect data, analyze findings and make informed decisions. When designers employ a combination of these approaches, they ensure a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand and develop effective solutions. 

CEO of Experience Dynamics, Frank Spillers explains the need to be clear about the problem that designers should address: 

To engage stakeholders in an action research project, first identify all individuals or groups with an interest in the project's outcome. These might include users, team members, clients or community representatives. Clearly communicate the goals, benefits and expected outcomes of the project to them. Use presentations, reports, or informal meetings to share your vision and how their involvement adds value. 

Involve stakeholders early and often by soliciting their feedback through surveys, interviews or workshops. This inclusion not only provides valuable insights but also fosters a sense of ownership and commitment to the project. Establish regular update meetings or newsletters to keep stakeholders informed about progress, challenges and successes. Finally, ensure there are clear channels for stakeholders to share their input and concerns throughout the project. 

This approach creates a collaborative environment where stakeholders feel valued and engaged, leading to more meaningful and impactful outcomes. 

To measure the impact of an action research project, start by defining clear, measurable objectives at the beginning. These objectives should align with the goals of your project and provide a baseline against which you can measure progress. Use quantitative metrics such as increased user engagement, sales growth or improved performance scores for a tangible assessment of impact. Incorporate qualitative data as well, such as user feedback and case studies, to understand the subjective experiences and insights gained through the project. 

Conduct surveys or interviews before and after the project to compare results and identify changes. Analyze this data to assess how well the project met its objectives and what effect it had on the target issue or audience. Document lessons learned and unexpected outcomes to provide a comprehensive view of the project's impact. This approach ensures a holistic evaluation, combining numerical data and personal insights to gauge the success and influence of your action research project effectively. 

Take our Master Class Design KPIs: From Insights to Impact with Vitaly Friedman, Senior UX consultant, European Parliament, and Creative Lead, Smashing Magazine. 

When unexpected results or obstacles emerge during action research, first, take a step back and assess the situation. Identify the nature of the unexpected outcome or obstacle and analyze its potential impact on your project. This step is crucial for understanding the issue at hand. 

Next, communicate with your team and stakeholders about the situation. Open communication ensures everyone understands the issue and can contribute to finding a solution. 

Then, consider adjusting your research plan or design strategy to accommodate the new findings or to overcome the obstacles. This might involve revisiting your research questions, methods or even the design problem you are addressing. 

Always document these changes and the reasons behind them. This documentation will be valuable for understanding the project's evolution and for future reference. 

Finally, view these challenges as learning opportunities. Unexpected results can lead to new insights and innovations that strengthen your project in the long run. 

By remaining flexible, communicating effectively, and being willing to adjust your approach, you can navigate the uncertainties of action research and continue making progress towards your goals. 

Professor Alan Dix explains externalization, a creative process that can help designers to adapt to unexpected roadblocks and find a good way forward: 

Action research can significantly contribute to inclusive and accessible design by directly involving users with diverse needs in the research and design process. When designers engage individuals from various backgrounds, abilities and experiences, they can gain a deeper understanding of the wide range of user requirements and preferences. This approach ensures that the products or services they develop cater to a broader audience, including those with disabilities. 

Furthermore, action research allows for iterative testing and feedback loops with users. This quality enables designers to identify and address accessibility challenges early in the design process. The continuous engagement helps in refining designs to be more user-friendly and inclusive. 

Additionally, action research fosters a culture of empathy and understanding within design teams, as it emphasizes the importance of seeing the world from the users' perspectives. This empathetic approach leads to more thoughtful and inclusive design decisions, ultimately resulting in products and services that are accessible to everyone. 

By prioritizing inclusivity and accessibility through action research, designers can create more equitable and accessible solutions that enhance the user experience for all. 

Take our Master Class How to Design for Neurodiversity: Inclusive Content and UX with Katrin Suetterlin, UX Content Strategist, Architect and Consultant. 

To ensure the reliability and validity of data in action research, follow these steps: 

Define clear research questions: Start with specific, clear research questions to guide your data collection. This clarity helps in gathering relevant and focused data. 

Use multiple data sources: Collect data from various sources to cross-verify information. This triangulation strengthens the reliability of your findings. 

Apply consistent methods: Use consistent data collection methods throughout your research. If conducting surveys or interviews, keep questions consistent across participants to ensure comparability. 

Engage in peer review: Have peers or experts review your research design and data analysis. Feedback can help identify biases or errors, and enhance the validity of your findings. 

Document the process: Keep detailed records of your research process, including how you collected and analyzed data. Documentation allows others to understand and validate your research methodology. 

Test and refine instruments: If you’re using surveys or assessment tools, test them for reliability and validity before using them extensively. Pilot testing helps refine these instruments, and ensures they accurately measure what they intend to. 

When you adhere to these principles, you can enhance the reliability and validity of your action research data, leading to more trustworthy and impactful outcomes. 

Take our Data-Driven Design: Quantitative Research for UX course.  

To analyze data collected during an action research project, follow these steps: 

Organize the data: Begin by organizing your data, categorizing information based on types, sources or research questions. This organization makes the data manageable and prepares you for in-depth analysis. 

Identify patterns and themes: Look for patterns, trends and themes within your data. This might mean to code qualitative data or use statistical tools for quantitative data to uncover recurring elements or significant findings. 

Compare findings to objectives: Match your findings against the research objectives. Assess how the data answers your research questions or addresses the issues you set out to explore. 

Use software tools: Consider using data analysis software, especially for complex or large data sets. Tools like NVivo for qualitative data or SPSS for quantitative data can simplify analysis and help in identifying insights. 

Draw conclusions: Based on your analysis, draw conclusions about what the data reveals. Look for insights that answer your research questions or offer solutions to the problem you are investigating. 

Reflect and act: Reflect on the implications of your findings. Consider how they impact your understanding of the research problem and what actions they suggest for improvement or further investigation. 

This approach to data analysis ensures a thorough understanding of the collected data, allowing you to draw meaningful conclusions and make informed decisions based on your action research project. 

Professor Ann Blandford, Professor of Human-Computer Interaction, UCL explains valuable aspects of data collection in this video: 

Baskerville, R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research . Journal of Information Technology, 11(3), 235-246.   

This influential paper examines the philosophical underpinnings of action research and its application in information systems research, which is closely related to UX design. It highlights the strengths of action research in addressing complex, real-world problems, as well as the challenges in maintaining rigor and achieving generalizability. The paper helped establish action research as a valuable methodology in the information systems and UX design fields.  

Di Mascio, T., & Tarantino, L. (2015). New Design Techniques for New Users: An Action Research-Based Approach . In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (pp. 83-96). ACM. 

This paper describes an action research project that aimed to develop a novel data gathering technique for understanding the context of use of a technology-enhanced learning system for children. The authors argue that traditional laboratory experiments struggle to maintain relevance to the real world, and that action research, with its focus on solving practical problems, is better suited to addressing the needs of new ICT products and their users. The paper provides insights into the action research process and reflects on its value in defining new methods for solving complex, real-world problems. The work is influential in demonstrating the applicability of action research in the field of user experience design, particularly for designing for new and underserved user groups. 

Villari, B. (2014). Action research approach in design research . In Proceedings of the 5th STS Italia Conference A Matter of Design: Making Society through Science and Technology (pp. 306-316). STS Italia Publishing.  

This paper explores the application of action research in the field of design research. The author argues that design is a complex practice that requires interdisciplinary skills and the ability to engage with diverse communities. Action research is presented as a research strategy that can effectively merge theory and practice, linking the reflective dimension to practical activities. The key features of action research highlighted in the paper are its context-dependent nature, the close relationship between researchers and the communities involved, and the iterative process of examining one's own practice and using research insights to inform future actions. The paper is influential in demonstrating the value of action research in addressing the challenges of design research, particularly in terms of bridging the gap between theory and practice and fostering collaborative, user-centered approaches to design.  

Brandt, E. (2004). Action research in user-centred product development . AI & Society, 18(2), 113-133.  

This paper reports on the use of action research to introduce new user-centered work practices in two commercial product development projects. The author argues that the growing complexity of products and the increasing importance of quality, usability, and customization demand new collaborative approaches that involve customers and users directly in the development process. The paper highlights the value of using action research to support these new ways of working, particularly in terms of creating and reifying design insights in representations that can foster collaboration and continuity throughout the project. The work is influential in demonstrating the applicability of action research in the context of user-centered product development, where the need to bridge theory and practice and engage diverse stakeholders is paramount. The paper provides valuable insights into the practical challenges and benefits of adopting action research in this domain. 

1. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice . SAGE Publications.  

This comprehensive handbook is considered a seminal work in the field of action research. It provides a thorough overview of the history, philosophical foundations, and diverse approaches to action research. The book features contributions from leading scholars and practitioners, covering topics such as participatory inquiry, critical action research, and the role of action research in organizational change and community development. It has been highly influential in establishing action research as a rigorous and impactful research methodology across various disciplines. 

 2. Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action Research (4th ed.) . SAGE Publications.  

This book by Ernest T. Stringer is a widely recognized and accessible guide to conducting action research. It provides clear, step-by-step instructions on the action research process, including gathering information, interpreting and explaining findings, and taking action to address practical problems. The book is particularly valuable for novice researchers and practitioners in fields such as education, social work, and community development, where action research is commonly applied. Its practical approach and real-life examples have made it a go-to resource for those seeking to engage in collaborative, solution-oriented research. 

3. McNiff, J. (2017). Action Research: All You Need to Know (1st ed.) . SAGE Publications.   

This book by Jean McNiff provides a comprehensive guide to conducting action research projects. It covers the key steps of the action research process, including identifying a problem, developing an action plan, implementing changes, and reflecting on the outcomes. The book is influential in the field of action research as it offers practical advice and strategies for practitioners across various disciplines, such as education, healthcare, and organizational development. It emphasizes the importance of critical reflection, collaboration, and the integration of theory and practice, making it a valuable resource for those seeking to engage in rigorous, transformative research. 

Answer a Short Quiz to Earn a Gift

What is a primary characteristic of action research in UX design?

• It drives practical changes through iterative cycles.
• It focuses solely on theoretical knowledge.
• It relies on external consultants to dictate changes.

Which type of action research improves system efficiency and effectiveness?

• Collaborative Action Research
• Critical Reflection Action Research
• Technical Action Research

What role do stakeholders play in collaborative action research?

• They participate actively in co-creating solutions.
• They provide financial support only.
• They review and approve final designs.

How do users in action research benefit the design process?

• They help make sure designs meet actual user needs and preferences.
• They help speed up the design process significantly.
• They limit the scope of design innovations.

What is the purpose of the reflection stage in the action research process?

• To document the research process for publication only
• To evaluate the effectiveness of actions and plan further improvements
• To finalize the product design without further changes

Better luck next time!

Do you want to improve your UX / UI Design skills? Join us now

Congratulations! You did amazing

You earned your gift with a perfect score! Let us send it to you.

Check Your Inbox

We’ve emailed your gift to [email protected] .

Literature on Action Research

Here’s the entire UX literature on Action Research by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:

Learn more about Action Research

Take a deep dive into Action Research with our course User Research – Methods and Best Practices .

How do you plan to design a product or service that your users will love , if you don't know what they want in the first place? As a user experience designer, you shouldn't leave it to chance to design something outstanding; you should make the effort to understand your users and build on that knowledge from the outset. User research is the way to do this, and it can therefore be thought of as the largest part of user experience design .

In fact, user research is often the first step of a UX design process—after all, you cannot begin to design a product or service without first understanding what your users want! As you gain the skills required, and learn about the best practices in user research, you’ll get first-hand knowledge of your users and be able to design the optimal product—one that’s truly relevant for your users and, subsequently, outperforms your competitors’ .

This course will give you insights into the most essential qualitative research methods around and will teach you how to put them into practice in your design work. You’ll also have the opportunity to embark on three practical projects where you can apply what you’ve learned to carry out user research in the real world . You’ll learn details about how to plan user research projects and fit them into your own work processes in a way that maximizes the impact your research can have on your designs. On top of that, you’ll gain practice with different methods that will help you analyze the results of your research and communicate your findings to your clients and stakeholders—workshops, user journeys and personas, just to name a few!

By the end of the course, you’ll have not only a Course Certificate but also three case studies to add to your portfolio. And remember, a portfolio with engaging case studies is invaluable if you are looking to break into a career in UX design or user research!

We believe you should learn from the best, so we’ve gathered a team of experts to help teach this course alongside our own course instructors. That means you’ll meet a new instructor in each of the lessons on research methods who is an expert in their field—we hope you enjoy what they have in store for you!

All open-source articles on Action Research

An Introduction to Action Research

• 8 years ago

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this page , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this page.

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

Created by the Great Schools Partnership , the GLOSSARY OF EDUCATION REFORM is a comprehensive online resource that describes widely used school-improvement terms, concepts, and strategies for journalists, parents, and community members. | Learn more »

Action Research

In schools, action research refers to a wide variety of evaluative, investigative, and analytical research methods designed to diagnose problems or weaknesses—whether organizational, academic, or instructional—and help educators develop practical solutions to address them quickly and efficiently. Action research may also be applied to programs or educational techniques that are not necessarily experiencing any problems, but that educators simply want to learn more about and improve. The general goal is to create a simple, practical, repeatable process of iterative learning, evaluation, and improvement that leads to increasingly better results for schools, teachers, or programs.

Action research may also be called a cycle of action or cycle of inquiry , since it typically follows a predefined process that is repeated over time. A simple illustrative example:

• Identify a problem to be studied
• Collect data on the problem
• Organize, analyze, and interpret the data
• Develop a plan to address the problem
• Implement the plan
• Evaluate the results of the actions taken
• Identify a new problem
• Repeat the process

Unlike more formal research studies, such as those conducted by universities and published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, action research is typically conducted by the educators working in the district or school being studied—the participants—rather than by independent, impartial observers from outside organizations. Less formal, prescriptive, or theory-driven research methods are typically used when conducting action research, since the goal is to address practical problems in a specific school or classroom, rather than produce independently validated and reproducible findings that others, outside of the context being studied, can use to guide their future actions or inform the design of their academic programs. That said, while action research is typically focused on solving a specific problem (high rates of student absenteeism, for example) or answer a specific question (Why are so many of our ninth graders failing math?), action research can also make meaningful contributions to the larger body of knowledge and understanding in the field of education, particularly within a relatively closed system such as school, district, or network of connected organizations.

The term “action research” was coined in the 1940s by Kurt Lewin, a German-American social psychologist who is widely considered to be the founder of his field. The basic principles of action research that were described by Lewin are still in use to this day.

Educators typically conduct action research as an extension of a particular school-improvement plan, project, or goal—i.e., action research is nearly always a school-reform strategy. The object of action research could be almost anything related to educational performance or improvement, from the effectiveness of certain teaching strategies and lesson designs to the influence that family background has on student performance to the results achieved by a particular academic support strategy or learning program—to list just a small sampling.

For related discussions, see action plan , capacity , continuous improvement , evidence-based , and professional development .

Alphabetical Search

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research Research Tools and Apps

Action Research: What it is, Stages & Examples

The best way to get things accomplished is to do it yourself. This statement is utilized in corporations, community projects, and national governments. These organizations are relying on action research to cope with their continuously changing and unstable environments as they function in a more interdependent world.

In practical educational contexts, this involves using systematic inquiry and reflective practice to address real-world challenges, improve teaching and learning, enhance student engagement, and drive positive changes within the educational system.

This post outlines the definition of action research, its stages, and some examples.

Content Index

What is action research?

Stages of action research, the steps to conducting action research, examples of action research, advantages and disadvantages of action research.

Action research is a strategy that tries to find realistic solutions to organizations’ difficulties and issues. It is similar to applied research.

Action research refers basically learning by doing. First, a problem is identified, then some actions are taken to address it, then how well the efforts worked are measured, and if the results are not satisfactory, the steps are applied again.

It can be put into three different groups:

• Positivist: This type of research is also called “classical action research.” It considers research a social experiment. This research is used to test theories in the actual world.
• Interpretive: This kind of research is called “contemporary action research.” It thinks that business reality is socially made, and when doing this research, it focuses on the details of local and organizational factors.
• Critical: This action research cycle takes a critical reflection approach to corporate systems and tries to enhance them.

All research is about learning new things. Collaborative action research contributes knowledge based on investigations in particular and frequently useful circumstances. It starts with identifying a problem. After that, the research process is followed by the below stages:

Stage 1: Plan

For an action research project to go well, the researcher needs to plan it well. After coming up with an educational research topic or question after a research study, the first step is to develop an action plan to guide the research process. The research design aims to address the study’s question. The research strategy outlines what to undertake, when, and how.

Stage 2: Act

The next step is implementing the plan and gathering data. At this point, the researcher must select how to collect and organize research data . The researcher also needs to examine all tools and equipment before collecting data to ensure they are relevant, valid, and comprehensive.

Stage 3: Observe

Data observation is vital to any investigation. The action researcher needs to review the project’s goals and expectations before data observation. This is the final step before drawing conclusions and taking action.

Different kinds of graphs, charts, and networks can be used to represent the data. It assists in making judgments or progressing to the next stage of observing.

Stage 4: Reflect

This step involves applying a prospective solution and observing the results. It’s essential to see if the possible solution found through research can really solve the problem being studied.

The researcher must explore alternative ideas when the action research project’s solutions fail to solve the problem.

Action research is a systematic approach researchers, educators, and practitioners use to identify and address problems or challenges within a specific context. It involves a cyclical process of planning, implementing, reflecting, and adjusting actions based on the data collected. Here are the general steps involved in conducting an action research process:

Identify the action research question or problem

Clearly define the issue or problem you want to address through your research. It should be specific, actionable, and relevant to your working context.

Review existing knowledge

Conduct a literature review to understand what research has already been done on the topic. This will help you gain insights, identify gaps, and inform your research design.

Plan the research

Develop a research plan outlining your study’s objectives, methods, data collection tools, and timeline. Determine the scope of your research and the participants or stakeholders involved.

Collect data

Implement your research plan by collecting relevant data. This can involve various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, document analysis, or focus groups. Ensure that your data collection methods align with your research objectives and allow you to gather the necessary information.

Analyze the data

Once you have collected the data, analyze it using appropriate qualitative or quantitative techniques. Look for patterns, themes, or trends in the data that can help you understand the problem better.

Reflect on the findings

Reflect on the analyzed data and interpret the results in the context of your research question. Consider the implications and possible solutions that emerge from the data analysis. This reflection phase is crucial for generating insights and understanding the underlying factors contributing to the problem.

Develop an action plan

Based on your analysis and reflection, develop an action plan that outlines the steps you will take to address the identified problem. The plan should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART goals). Consider involving relevant stakeholders in planning to ensure their buy-in and support.

Implement the action plan

Put your action plan into practice by implementing the identified strategies or interventions. This may involve making changes to existing practices, introducing new approaches, or testing alternative solutions. Document the implementation process and any modifications made along the way.

Evaluate and monitor progress

Continuously monitor and evaluate the impact of your actions. Collect additional data, assess the effectiveness of the interventions, and measure progress towards your goals. This evaluation will help you determine if your actions have the desired effects and inform any necessary adjustments.

Reflect and iterate

Reflect on the outcomes of your actions and the evaluation results. Consider what worked well, what did not, and why. Use this information to refine your approach, make necessary adjustments, and plan for the next cycle of action research if needed.

Remember that participatory action research is an iterative process, and multiple cycles may be required to achieve significant improvements or solutions to the identified problem. Each cycle builds on the insights gained from the previous one, fostering continuous learning and improvement.

Explore Insightfully Contextual Inquiry in Qualitative Research

Here are two real-life examples of action research.

Action research initiatives are frequently situation-specific. Still, other researchers can adapt the techniques. The example is from a researcher’s (Franklin, 1994) report about a project encouraging nature tourism in the Caribbean.

In 1991, this was launched to study how nature tourism may be implemented on the four Windward Islands in the Caribbean: St. Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, and St. Vincent.

For environmental protection, a government-led action study determined that the consultation process needs to involve numerous stakeholders, including commercial enterprises.

First, two researchers undertook the study and held search conferences on each island. The search conferences resulted in suggestions and action plans for local community nature tourism sub-projects.

Several islands formed advisory groups and launched national awareness and community projects. Regional project meetings were held to discuss experiences, self-evaluations, and strategies. Creating a documentary about a local initiative helped build community. And the study was a success, leading to a number of changes in the area.

Lau and Hayward (1997) employed action research to analyze Internet-based collaborative work groups.

Over two years, the researchers facilitated three action research problem -solving cycles with 15 teachers, project personnel, and 25 health practitioners from diverse areas. The goal was to see how Internet-based communications might affect their virtual workgroup.

First, expectations were defined, technology was provided, and a bespoke workgroup system was developed. Participants suggested shorter, more dispersed training sessions with project-specific instructions.

The second phase saw the system’s complete deployment. The final cycle witnessed system stability and virtual group formation. The key lesson was that the learning curve was poorly misjudged, with frustrations only marginally met by phone-based technical help. According to the researchers, the absence of high-quality online material about community healthcare was harmful.

Role clarity, connection building, knowledge sharing, resource assistance, and experiential learning are vital for virtual group growth. More study is required on how group support systems might assist groups in engaging with their external environment and boost group members’ learning. 

Action research has both good and bad points.

• It is very flexible, so researchers can change their analyses to fit their needs and make individual changes.
• It offers a quick and easy way to solve problems that have been going on for a long time instead of complicated, long-term solutions based on complex facts.
• If It is done right, it can be very powerful because it can lead to social change and give people the tools to make that change in ways that are important to their communities.

Disadvantages

• These studies have a hard time being generalized and are hard to repeat because they are so flexible. Because the researcher has the power to draw conclusions, they are often not thought to be theoretically sound.
• Setting up an action study in an ethical way can be hard. People may feel like they have to take part or take part in a certain way.
• It is prone to research errors like selection bias , social desirability bias, and other cognitive biases.

LEARN ABOUT: Self-Selection Bias

This post discusses how action research generates knowledge, its steps, and real-life examples. It is very applicable to the field of research and has a high level of relevance. We can only state that the purpose of this research is to comprehend an issue and find a solution to it.

At QuestionPro, we give researchers tools for collecting data, like our survey software, and a library of insights for any long-term study. Go to the Insight Hub if you want to see a demo or learn more about it.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ’s)

Action research is a systematic approach to inquiry that involves identifying a problem or challenge in a practical context, implementing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, and using the findings to inform decision-making and drive positive change.

Action research can be conducted by various individuals or groups, including teachers, administrators, researchers, and educational practitioners. It is often carried out by those directly involved in the educational setting where the research takes place.

The steps of action research typically include identifying a problem, reviewing relevant literature, designing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, reflecting on findings, and implementing improvements based on the results.

MORE LIKE THIS

What Are My Employees Really Thinking? The Power of Open-ended Survey Analysis

May 24, 2024

I Am Disconnected – Tuesday CX Thoughts

May 21, 2024

20 Best Customer Success Tools of 2024

May 20, 2024

AI-Based Services Buying Guide for Market Research (based on ESOMAR’s 20 Questions) 

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Main Navigation Menu

Action research.

• Getting Started
• Action Research by Groups
• The Teacher Action Researcher
• Bibliography & Additional Resources

Education Liaison Librarian

What is Action Research?

Action research involves a systematic process of examining the evidence. The results of this type of research are practical, relevant, and can inform theory. Action research is different than other forms of research as there is less concern for universality of findings, and more value is placed on the relevance of the findings to the researcher and the local collaborators.

Riel, M. (2020). Understanding action research. Center For Collaborative Action Research, Pepperdine University.  Retrieved January 31, 2021 from the Center for Collaborative Action Research.  https://www.actionresearchtutorials.org/  

-----------------------------------

The short video below by John Spencer provides a quick overview of Action Research.

How is Action Research different?

This chart demonstrates the difference between traditional research and action research. Traditional research is a means to an end - the conclusion. They start with a theory, statistical analysis is critical and the researcher does not insert herself into the research.

Action research is often practiced by practitioners like teachers and librarians who remain in the middle of the research process. They are looking for ways to improve the specific situation for their clientele or students. Statistics may be collected but they are not the point of the research.

Adapted from: Mc Millan, J. H. & Wergin. J. F. (1998). Understanding and evaluating educational research. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

1 What is Action Research for Classroom Teachers?

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

• What is the nature of action research?
• How does action research develop in the classroom?
• What models of action research work best for your classroom?
• What are the epistemological, ontological, theoretical underpinnings of action research?

Educational research provides a vast landscape of knowledge on topics related to teaching and learning, curriculum and assessment, students’ cognitive and affective needs, cultural and socio-economic factors of schools, and many other factors considered viable to improving schools. Educational stakeholders rely on research to make informed decisions that ultimately affect the quality of schooling for their students. Accordingly, the purpose of educational research is to engage in disciplined inquiry to generate knowledge on topics significant to the students, teachers, administrators, schools, and other educational stakeholders. Just as the topics of educational research vary, so do the approaches to conducting educational research in the classroom. Your approach to research will be shaped by your context, your professional identity, and paradigm (set of beliefs and assumptions that guide your inquiry). These will all be key factors in how you generate knowledge related to your work as an educator.

Action research is an approach to educational research that is commonly used by educational practitioners and professionals to examine, and ultimately improve, their pedagogy and practice. In this way, action research represents an extension of the reflection and critical self-reflection that an educator employs on a daily basis in their classroom. When students are actively engaged in learning, the classroom can be dynamic and uncertain, demanding the constant attention of the educator. Considering these demands, educators are often only able to engage in reflection that is fleeting, and for the purpose of accommodation, modification, or formative assessment. Action research offers one path to more deliberate, substantial, and critical reflection that can be documented and analyzed to improve an educator’s practice.

Purpose of Action Research

As one of many approaches to educational research, it is important to distinguish the potential purposes of action research in the classroom. This book focuses on action research as a method to enable and support educators in pursuing effective pedagogical practices by transforming the quality of teaching decisions and actions, to subsequently enhance student engagement and learning. Being mindful of this purpose, the following aspects of action research are important to consider as you contemplate and engage with action research methodology in your classroom:

• Action research is a process for improving educational practice. Its methods involve action, evaluation, and reflection. It is a process to gather evidence to implement change in practices.
• Action research is participative and collaborative. It is undertaken by individuals with a common purpose.
• Action research is situation and context-based.
• Action research develops reflection practices based on the interpretations made by participants.
• Knowledge is created through action and application.
• Action research can be based in problem-solving, if the solution to the problem results in the improvement of practice.
• Action research is iterative; plans are created, implemented, revised, then implemented, lending itself to an ongoing process of reflection and revision.
• In action research, findings emerge as action develops and takes place; however, they are not conclusive or absolute, but ongoing (Koshy, 2010, pgs. 1-2).

In thinking about the purpose of action research, it is helpful to situate action research as a distinct paradigm of educational research. I like to think about action research as part of the larger concept of living knowledge. Living knowledge has been characterized as “a quest for life, to understand life and to create… knowledge which is valid for the people with whom I work and for myself” (Swantz, in Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 1). Why should educators care about living knowledge as part of educational research? As mentioned above, action research is meant “to produce practical knowledge that is useful to people in the everyday conduct of their lives and to see that action research is about working towards practical outcomes” (Koshy, 2010, pg. 2). However, it is also about:

creating new forms of understanding, since action without reflection and understanding is blind, just as theory without action is meaningless. The participatory nature of action research makes it only possible with, for and by persons and communities, ideally involving all stakeholders both in the questioning and sense making that informs the research, and in the action, which is its focus. (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 2)

In an effort to further situate action research as living knowledge, Jean McNiff reminds us that “there is no such ‘thing’ as ‘action research’” (2013, pg. 24). In other words, action research is not static or finished, it defines itself as it proceeds. McNiff’s reminder characterizes action research as action-oriented, and a process that individuals go through to make their learning public to explain how it informs their practice. Action research does not derive its meaning from an abstract idea, or a self-contained discovery – action research’s meaning stems from the way educators negotiate the problems and successes of living and working in the classroom, school, and community.

While we can debate the idea of action research, there are people who are action researchers, and they use the idea of action research to develop principles and theories to guide their practice. Action research, then, refers to an organization of principles that guide action researchers as they act on shared beliefs, commitments, and expectations in their inquiry.

Reflection and the Process of Action Research

When an individual engages in reflection on their actions or experiences, it is typically for the purpose of better understanding those experiences, or the consequences of those actions to improve related action and experiences in the future. Reflection in this way develops knowledge around these actions and experiences to help us better regulate those actions in the future. The reflective process generates new knowledge regularly for classroom teachers and informs their classroom actions.

Unfortunately, the knowledge generated by educators through the reflective process is not always prioritized among the other sources of knowledge educators are expected to utilize in the classroom. Educators are expected to draw upon formal types of knowledge, such as textbooks, content standards, teaching standards, district curriculum and behavioral programs, etc., to gain new knowledge and make decisions in the classroom. While these forms of knowledge are important, the reflective knowledge that educators generate through their pedagogy is the amalgamation of these types of knowledge enacted in the classroom. Therefore, reflective knowledge is uniquely developed based on the action and implementation of an educator’s pedagogy in the classroom. Action research offers a way to formalize the knowledge generated by educators so that it can be utilized and disseminated throughout the teaching profession.

Research is concerned with the generation of knowledge, and typically creating knowledge related to a concept, idea, phenomenon, or topic. Action research generates knowledge around inquiry in practical educational contexts. Action research allows educators to learn through their actions with the purpose of developing personally or professionally. Due to its participatory nature, the process of action research is also distinct in educational research. There are many models for how the action research process takes shape. I will share a few of those here. Each model utilizes the following processes to some extent:

• Plan a change;
• Take action to enact the change;
• Observe the process and consequences of the change;
• Reflect on the process and consequences;
• Act, observe, & reflect again and so on.

Figure 1.1 Basic action research cycle

There are many other models that supplement the basic process of action research with other aspects of the research process to consider. For example, figure 1.2 illustrates a spiral model of action research proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (2004). The spiral model emphasizes the cyclical process that moves beyond the initial plan for change. The spiral model also emphasizes revisiting the initial plan and revising based on the initial cycle of research:

Figure 1.2 Interpretation of action research spiral, Kemmis and McTaggart (2004, p. 595)

Other models of action research reorganize the process to emphasize the distinct ways knowledge takes shape in the reflection process. O’Leary’s (2004, p. 141) model, for example, recognizes that the research may take shape in the classroom as knowledge emerges from the teacher’s observations. O’Leary highlights the need for action research to be focused on situational understanding and implementation of action, initiated organically from real-time issues:

Figure 1.3 Interpretation of O’Leary’s cycles of research, O’Leary (2000, p. 141)

Lastly, Macintyre’s (2000, p. 1) model, offers a different characterization of the action research process. Macintyre emphasizes a messier process of research with the initial reflections and conclusions as the benchmarks for guiding the research process. Macintyre emphasizes the flexibility in planning, acting, and observing stages to allow the process to be naturalistic. Our interpretation of Macintyre process is below:

Figure 1.4 Interpretation of the action research cycle, Macintyre (2000, p. 1)

We believe it is important to prioritize the flexibility of the process, and encourage you to only use these models as basic guides for your process. Your process may look similar, or you may diverge from these models as you better understand your students, context, and data.

Definitions of Action Research and Examples

At this point, it may be helpful for readers to have a working definition of action research and some examples to illustrate the methodology in the classroom. Bassey (1998, p. 93) offers a very practical definition and describes “action research as an inquiry which is carried out in order to understand, to evaluate and then to change, in order to improve educational practice.” Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 192) situate action research differently, and describe action research as emergent, writing:

essentially an on-the-spot procedure designed to deal with a concrete problem located in an immediate situation. This means that ideally, the step-by-step process is constantly monitored over varying periods of time and by a variety of mechanisms (questionnaires, diaries, interviews and case studies, for example) so that the ensuing feedback may be translated into modifications, adjustment, directional changes, redefinitions, as necessary, so as to bring about lasting benefit to the ongoing process itself rather than to some future occasion.

Lastly, Koshy (2010, p. 9) describes action research as:

a constructive inquiry, during which the researcher constructs his or her knowledge of specific issues through planning, acting, evaluating, refining and learning from the experience. It is a continuous learning process in which the researcher learns and also shares the newly generated knowledge with those who may benefit from it.

These definitions highlight the distinct features of action research and emphasize the purposeful intent of action researchers to improve, refine, reform, and problem-solve issues in their educational context. To better understand the distinctness of action research, these are some examples of action research topics:

Examples of Action Research Topics

• Flexible seating in 4th grade classroom to increase effective collaborative learning.
• Structured homework protocols for increasing student achievement.
• Developing a system of formative feedback for 8th grade writing.
• Using music to stimulate creative writing.
• Weekly brown bag lunch sessions to improve responses to PD from staff.
• Using exercise balls as chairs for better classroom management.

Action Research in Theory

Action research-based inquiry in educational contexts and classrooms involves distinct participants – students, teachers, and other educational stakeholders within the system. All of these participants are engaged in activities to benefit the students, and subsequently society as a whole. Action research contributes to these activities and potentially enhances the participants’ roles in the education system. Participants’ roles are enhanced based on two underlying principles:

• communities, schools, and classrooms are sites of socially mediated actions, and action research provides a greater understanding of self and new knowledge of how to negotiate these socially mediated environments;
• communities, schools, and classrooms are part of social systems in which humans interact with many cultural tools, and action research provides a basis to construct and analyze these interactions.

In our quest for knowledge and understanding, we have consistently analyzed human experience over time and have distinguished between types of reality. Humans have constantly sought “facts” and “truth” about reality that can be empirically demonstrated or observed.

Social systems are based on beliefs, and generally, beliefs about what will benefit the greatest amount of people in that society. Beliefs, and more specifically the rationale or support for beliefs, are not always easy to demonstrate or observe as part of our reality. Take the example of an English Language Arts teacher who prioritizes argumentative writing in her class. She believes that argumentative writing demonstrates the mechanics of writing best among types of writing, while also providing students a skill they will need as citizens and professionals. While we can observe the students writing, and we can assess their ability to develop a written argument, it is difficult to observe the students’ understanding of argumentative writing and its purpose in their future. This relates to the teacher’s beliefs about argumentative writing; we cannot observe the real value of the teaching of argumentative writing. The teacher’s rationale and beliefs about teaching argumentative writing are bound to the social system and the skills their students will need to be active parts of that system. Therefore, our goal through action research is to demonstrate the best ways to teach argumentative writing to help all participants understand its value as part of a social system.

The knowledge that is conveyed in a classroom is bound to, and justified by, a social system. A postmodernist approach to understanding our world seeks knowledge within a social system, which is directly opposed to the empirical or positivist approach which demands evidence based on logic or science as rationale for beliefs. Action research does not rely on a positivist viewpoint to develop evidence and conclusions as part of the research process. Action research offers a postmodernist stance to epistemology (theory of knowledge) and supports developing questions and new inquiries during the research process. In this way action research is an emergent process that allows beliefs and decisions to be negotiated as reality and meaning are being constructed in the socially mediated space of the classroom.

Theorizing Action Research for the Classroom

All research, at its core, is for the purpose of generating new knowledge and contributing to the knowledge base of educational research. Action researchers in the classroom want to explore methods of improving their pedagogy and practice. The starting place of their inquiry stems from their pedagogy and practice, so by nature the knowledge created from their inquiry is often contextually specific to their classroom, school, or community. Therefore, we should examine the theoretical underpinnings of action research for the classroom. It is important to connect action research conceptually to experience; for example, Levin and Greenwood (2001, p. 105) make these connections:

• Action research is context bound and addresses real life problems.
• Action research is inquiry where participants and researchers cogenerate knowledge through collaborative communicative processes in which all participants’ contributions are taken seriously.
• The meanings constructed in the inquiry process lead to social action or these reflections and action lead to the construction of new meanings.
• The credibility/validity of action research knowledge is measured according to whether the actions that arise from it solve problems (workability) and increase participants’ control over their own situation.

Educators who engage in action research will generate new knowledge and beliefs based on their experiences in the classroom. Let us emphasize that these are all important to you and your work, as both an educator and researcher. It is these experiences, beliefs, and theories that are often discounted when more official forms of knowledge (e.g., textbooks, curriculum standards, districts standards) are prioritized. These beliefs and theories based on experiences should be valued and explored further, and this is one of the primary purposes of action research in the classroom. These beliefs and theories should be valued because they were meaningful aspects of knowledge constructed from teachers’ experiences. Developing meaning and knowledge in this way forms the basis of constructivist ideology, just as teachers often try to get their students to construct their own meanings and understandings when experiencing new ideas.  

Classroom Teachers Constructing their Own Knowledge

Most of you are probably at least minimally familiar with constructivism, or the process of constructing knowledge. However, what is constructivism precisely, for the purposes of action research? Many scholars have theorized constructivism and have identified two key attributes (Koshy, 2010; von Glasersfeld, 1987):

• Knowledge is not passively received, but actively developed through an individual’s cognition;
• Human cognition is adaptive and finds purpose in organizing the new experiences of the world, instead of settling for absolute or objective truth.

Considering these two attributes, constructivism is distinct from conventional knowledge formation because people can develop a theory of knowledge that orders and organizes the world based on their experiences, instead of an objective or neutral reality. When individuals construct knowledge, there are interactions between an individual and their environment where communication, negotiation and meaning-making are collectively developing knowledge. For most educators, constructivism may be a natural inclination of their pedagogy. Action researchers have a similar relationship to constructivism because they are actively engaged in a process of constructing knowledge. However, their constructions may be more formal and based on the data they collect in the research process. Action researchers also are engaged in the meaning making process, making interpretations from their data. These aspects of the action research process situate them in the constructivist ideology. Just like constructivist educators, action researchers’ constructions of knowledge will be affected by their individual and professional ideas and values, as well as the ecological context in which they work (Biesta & Tedder, 2006). The relations between constructivist inquiry and action research is important, as Lincoln (2001, p. 130) states:

much of the epistemological, ontological, and axiological belief systems are the same or similar, and methodologically, constructivists and action researchers work in similar ways, relying on qualitative methods in face-to-face work, while buttressing information, data and background with quantitative method work when necessary or useful.

While there are many links between action research and educators in the classroom, constructivism offers the most familiar and practical threads to bind the beliefs of educators and action researchers.  

Epistemology, Ontology, and Action Research

It is also important for educators to consider the philosophical stances related to action research to better situate it with their beliefs and reality. When researchers make decisions about the methodology they intend to use, they will consider their ontological and epistemological stances. It is vital that researchers clearly distinguish their philosophical stances and understand the implications of their stance in the research process, especially when collecting and analyzing their data. In what follows, we will discuss ontological and epistemological stances in relation to action research methodology.

Ontology, or the theory of being, is concerned with the claims or assumptions we make about ourselves within our social reality – what do we think exists, what does it look like, what entities are involved and how do these entities interact with each other (Blaikie, 2007). In relation to the discussion of constructivism, generally action researchers would consider their educational reality as socially constructed. Social construction of reality happens when individuals interact in a social system. Meaningful construction of concepts and representations of reality develop through an individual’s interpretations of others’ actions. These interpretations become agreed upon by members of a social system and become part of social fabric, reproduced as knowledge and beliefs to develop assumptions about reality. Researchers develop meaningful constructions based on their experiences and through communication. Educators as action researchers will be examining the socially constructed reality of schools. In the United States, many of our concepts, knowledge, and beliefs about schooling have been socially constructed over the last hundred years. For example, a group of teachers may look at why fewer female students enroll in upper-level science courses at their school. This question deals directly with the social construction of gender and specifically what careers females have been conditioned to pursue. We know this is a social construction in some school social systems because in other parts of the world, or even the United States, there are schools that have more females enrolled in upper level science courses than male students. Therefore, the educators conducting the research have to recognize the socially constructed reality of their school and consider this reality throughout the research process. Action researchers will use methods of data collection that support their ontological stance and clarify their theoretical stance throughout the research process.

Koshy (2010, p. 23-24) offers another example of addressing the ontological challenges in the classroom:

A teacher who was concerned with increasing her pupils’ motivation and enthusiasm for learning decided to introduce learning diaries which the children could take home. They were invited to record their reactions to the day’s lessons and what they had learnt. The teacher reported in her field diary that the learning diaries stimulated the children’s interest in her lessons, increased their capacity to learn, and generally improved their level of participation in lessons. The challenge for the teacher here is in the analysis and interpretation of the multiplicity of factors accompanying the use of diaries. The diaries were taken home so the entries may have been influenced by discussions with parents. Another possibility is that children felt the need to please their teacher. Another possible influence was that their increased motivation was as a result of the difference in style of teaching which included more discussions in the classroom based on the entries in the dairies.

Here you can see the challenge for the action researcher is working in a social context with multiple factors, values, and experiences that were outside of the teacher’s control. The teacher was only responsible for introducing the diaries as a new style of learning. The students’ engagement and interactions with this new style of learning were all based upon their socially constructed notions of learning inside and outside of the classroom. A researcher with a positivist ontological stance would not consider these factors, and instead might simply conclude that the dairies increased motivation and interest in the topic, as a result of introducing the diaries as a learning strategy.

Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, signifies a philosophical view of what counts as knowledge – it justifies what is possible to be known and what criteria distinguishes knowledge from beliefs (Blaikie, 1993). Positivist researchers, for example, consider knowledge to be certain and discovered through scientific processes. Action researchers collect data that is more subjective and examine personal experience, insights, and beliefs.

Action researchers utilize interpretation as a means for knowledge creation. Action researchers have many epistemologies to choose from as means of situating the types of knowledge they will generate by interpreting the data from their research. For example, Koro-Ljungberg et al., (2009) identified several common epistemologies in their article that examined epistemological awareness in qualitative educational research, such as: objectivism, subjectivism, constructionism, contextualism, social epistemology, feminist epistemology, idealism, naturalized epistemology, externalism, relativism, skepticism, and pluralism. All of these epistemological stances have implications for the research process, especially data collection and analysis. Please see the table on pages 689-90, linked below for a sketch of these potential implications:

Again, Koshy (2010, p. 24) provides an excellent example to illustrate the epistemological challenges within action research:

A teacher of 11-year-old children decided to carry out an action research project which involved a change in style in teaching mathematics. Instead of giving children mathematical tasks displaying the subject as abstract principles, she made links with other subjects which she believed would encourage children to see mathematics as a discipline that could improve their understanding of the environment and historic events. At the conclusion of the project, the teacher reported that applicable mathematics generated greater enthusiasm and understanding of the subject.

The educator/researcher engaged in action research-based inquiry to improve an aspect of her pedagogy. She generated knowledge that indicated she had improved her students’ understanding of mathematics by integrating it with other subjects – specifically in the social and ecological context of her classroom, school, and community. She valued constructivism and students generating their own understanding of mathematics based on related topics in other subjects. Action researchers working in a social context do not generate certain knowledge, but knowledge that emerges and can be observed and researched again, building upon their knowledge each time.

Researcher Positionality in Action Research

In this first chapter, we have discussed a lot about the role of experiences in sparking the research process in the classroom. Your experiences as an educator will shape how you approach action research in your classroom. Your experiences as a person in general will also shape how you create knowledge from your research process. In particular, your experiences will shape how you make meaning from your findings. It is important to be clear about your experiences when developing your methodology too. This is referred to as researcher positionality. Maher and Tetreault (1993, p. 118) define positionality as:

Gender, race, class, and other aspects of our identities are markers of relational positions rather than essential qualities. Knowledge is valid when it includes an acknowledgment of the knower’s specific position in any context, because changing contextual and relational factors are crucial for defining identities and our knowledge in any given situation.

By presenting your positionality in the research process, you are signifying the type of socially constructed, and other types of, knowledge you will be using to make sense of the data. As Maher and Tetreault explain, this increases the trustworthiness of your conclusions about the data. This would not be possible with a positivist ontology. We will discuss positionality more in chapter 6, but we wanted to connect it to the overall theoretical underpinnings of action research.

Advantages of Engaging in Action Research in the Classroom

In the following chapters, we will discuss how action research takes shape in your classroom, and we wanted to briefly summarize the key advantages to action research methodology over other types of research methodology. As Koshy (2010, p. 25) notes, action research provides useful methodology for school and classroom research because:

Advantages of Action Research for the Classroom

• research can be set within a specific context or situation;
• researchers can be participants – they don’t have to be distant and detached from the situation;
• it involves continuous evaluation and modifications can be made easily as the project progresses;
• there are opportunities for theory to emerge from the research rather than always follow a previously formulated theory;
• the study can lead to open-ended outcomes;
• through action research, a researcher can bring a story to life.

Action Research Copyright © by J. Spencer Clark; Suzanne Porath; Julie Thiele; and Morgan Jobe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Research Methods and Design

• Action Research
• Case Study Design
• Literature Review
• Quantitative Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Mixed Methods Study
• Indigenous Research and Ethics This link opens in a new window
• Identifying Empirical Research Articles This link opens in a new window
• Research Ethics and Quality
• Data Literacy
• Get Help with Writing Assignments

Action research

A type of applied research designed to find the most effective way to bring about a desired social change or to solve a practical problem, usually in collaboration with those being researched.

SAGE Research Methods Videos

How do you define action research.

Professor David Coghlan explains action research as an approach that crosses many academic disciplines yet has a shared focus on taking action to address a problem. He describes the difference between this approach and empirical scientific approaches, particularly highlighting the challenge of getting action research to be taken seriously by academic journals

Dr. Nataliya Ivankova defines action research as using systematic research principles to address an issue in everyday life. She delineates the six steps of action research, and illustrates the concept using an anti-diabetes project in an urban area.

This is just one segment in a whole series about action research. You can find the rest of the series in our SAGE database, Research Methods:

Videos covering research methods and statistics

Further Reading

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Case Study Design >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:51 AM

CityU Home - CityU Catalog

Action research in the classroom: A teacher's guide

November 26, 2021

Discover best practices for action research in the classroom, guiding teachers on implementing and facilitating impactful studies in schools.

Main, P (2021, November 26). Action research in the classroom: A teacher's guide. Retrieved from https://www.structural-learning.com/post/action-research-in-the-classroom-a-teachers-guide

What is action research?

Action research is a participatory process designed to empower educators to examine and improve their own practice. It is characterized by a cycle of planning , action, observation, and reflection, with the goal of achieving a deeper understanding of practice within educational contexts. This process encourages a wide range of approaches and can be adapted to various social contexts.

At its core, action research involves critical reflection on one's actions as a basis for improvement. Senior leaders and teachers are guided to reflect on their educational strategies , classroom management, and student engagement techniques. It's a collaborative effort that often involves not just the teachers but also the students and other stakeholders, fostering an inclusive process that values the input of all participants.

The action research process is iterative, with each cycle aiming to bring about a clearer understanding and improvement in practice. It typically begins with the identification of real-world problems within the school environment, followed by a circle of planning where strategies are developed to address these issues. The implementation of these strategies is then observed and documented, often through journals or participant observation, allowing for reflection and analysis.

The insights gained from action research contribute to Organization Development, enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. This approach is strongly aligned with the principles of Quality Assurance in Education, ensuring that the actions taken are effective and responsive to the needs of the school community.

Educators can share their findings in community forums or through publications in journals, contributing to the wider theory about practice . Tertiary education sector often draws on such studies to inform teacher training and curriculum development.

In summary, the significant parts of action research include:

• A continuous cycle of planning, action, observation, and reflection.
• A focus on reflective practice to achieve a deeper understanding of educational methodologies.
• A commitment to inclusive and participatory processes that engage the entire school community.

Creating an action research project

The action research process usually begins with a situation or issue that a teacher wants to change as part of school improvement initiatives .

Teachers get support in changing the ' interesting issue ' into a 'researchable question' and then taking to experiment. The teacher will draw on the outcomes of other researchers to help build actions and reveal the consequences .

Participatory action research is a strategy to the enquiry which has been utilised since the 1940s. Participatory action involves researchers and other participants taking informed action to gain knowledge of a problematic situation and change it to bring a positive effect. As an action researcher , a teacher carries out research . Enquiring into their practice would lead a teacher to question the norms and assumptions that are mostly overlooked in normal school life . Making a routine of inquiry can provide a commitment to learning and professional development . A teacher-researcher holds the responsibility for being the source and agent of change.

Examples of action research projects in education include a teacher working with students to improve their reading comprehension skills , a group of teachers collaborating to develop and implement a new curriculum, or a school administrator conducting a study on the effectiveness of a school-wide behavior management program.

In each of these cases, the research is aimed at improving the educational experience for students and addressing a specific issue or problem within the school community . Action research can be a powerful tool for educators to improve their practice and make a positive impact on their students' learning.

Potential research questions could include:

• How can dual-coding be used to improve my students memory ?
• Does mind-mapping lead to creativity?
• How does Oracy improve my classes writing?
• How can we advance critical thinking in year 10?
• How can graphic organisers be used for exam preparation?

Regardless of the types of action research your staff engage in, a solid cycle of inquiry is an essential aspect of the action research spiral. Building in the process of reflection will ensure that key points of learning can be extracted from the action research study.

What is an action research cycle?

Action research in education is a cycle of reflection and action inquiry , which follows these steps:

1. Identifying the problem

It is the first stage of action research that starts when a teacher identifies a problem or question that they want to address. To make an a ction research approach successful, the teacher needs to ensure that the questions are the ones 'they' wish to solve. Their questions might involve social sciences, instructional strategies, everyday life and social management issues, guide for students analytical research methods for improving specific student performance or curriculum implementation etc. Teachers may seek help from a wide variety of existing literature , to find strategies and solutions that others have executed to solve any particular problem. It is also suggested to build a visual map or a table of problems, target performances, potential solutions and supporting references in the middle.

2. Developing an Action Plan

After identifying the problem, after r eviewing the relevant literature and describing the vision of how to solve the problem; the next step would be action planning which means to develop a plan of action . Action planning involves studying the literature and brainstorming can be used by the action research planner to create new techniques and strategies that can generate better results of both action learning and action research. One may go back to the visual map or table of contents and reorder or colour-code the potential outcomes. The items in the list can be ranked in order of significance and the amount of time needed for these strategies.

An action plan has the details of how to implement each idea and the factors that may keep them from their vision of success . Identify those factors that cannot be changed –these are the constants in an equation. The focus of action research at the planning stage must remain focused on the variables –the factors that can be changed using actions. An action plan must be how to implement a solution and how one's instruction, management style, and behaviour will affect each of the variables.

3. Data Collection

Before starting to implement a plan of action , the researcher must have a complete understanding of action research and must have knowledge of the type of data that may help in the success of the plan and must assess how to collect that data. For instance, if the goal is to improve class attendance, attendance records must be collected as useful data for the participatory action. If the goal is to improve time management, the data may include students and classroom observations . There are many options to choose from to collect data from. Selecting the most suitable methodology for data collection will provide more meaningful , accurate and valid data. Some sources of data are interviews and observation. Also, one may administer surveys , distribute questionnaires and watch videotapes of the classroom to collect data.

4. Data Analysis and Conclusions

At this action stage, an action researcher analyses the collected data and concludes. It is suggested to assess the data during the predefined process of data collection as it will help refine the action research agenda. If the collected data seems insufficient , the data collection plan must be revised. Data analysis also helps to reflect on what exactly happened. Did the action researcher perform the actions as planned? Were the study outcomes as expected? Which assumptions of the action researcher proved to be incorrect?

Adding details such as tables, opinions, and recommendations can help in identifying trends (correlations and relationships). One must share the findings while analysing data and drawing conclusions . Engaging in conversations for teacher growth is essential; hence, the action researcher would share the findings with other teachers through discussion of action research, who can yield useful feedback. One may also share the findings with students, as they can also provide additional insight . For example, if teachers and students agree with the conclusions of action research for educational change, it adds to the credibility of the data collection plan and analysis. If they don't seem to agree with the data collection plan and analysis , the action researchers may take informed action and refine the data collection plan and reevaluate conclusions .

5. Modifying the Educational Theory and Repeat

After concluding, the process begins again. The teacher can adjust different aspects of the action research approach to theory or make it more specific according to the findings . Action research guides how to change the steps of action research development, how to modify the action plan , and provide better access to resources, start data collection once again, or prepare new questions to ask from the respondents.

6. Report the Findings

Since the main approach to action research involves the informed action to introduce useful change into the classroom or schools, one must not forget to share the outcomes with others. Sharing the outcomes would help to further reflect on the problem and process, and it would help other teachers to use these findings to enhance their professional practice as an educator. One may print book and share the experience with the school leaders, principal, teachers and students as they served as guide to action research. Or, a community action researcher may present community-based action research at a conference so people from other areas can take advantage of this collaborative action. Also, teachers may use a digital storytelling tool to outline their results.

There are plenty of creative tools we can use to bring the research projects to life. We have seen videos, podcasts and research posters all being used to communicate the results of these programs. Community action research is a unique way to present details of the community-related adventures in the teacher profession, cultivate expertise and show how teachers think about education , so it is better to find unique ways to report the findings of community-led action research.

Final thoughts on action-research for teachers

As we have seen, action research can be an effective form of professional development, illuminating the path for teachers and school leaders seeking to refine their craft. This cyclical process of inquiry and reflection is not merely a methodological pursuit but a profound professional journey. The definition of action research, as a systematic inquiry conducted by teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment, emphasizes the collaborative nature of improving educational strategies and outcomes.

Action research transcends traditional disciplinary practices by immersing educators in the social contexts of their work, prompting them to question and adapt their methods to meet the evolving needs of their students . It is a form of reflective practice that demands critical thinking and flexibility, as one navigates through the iterative stages of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.

The process of action research is inherently participatory, encouraging educators to engage with their learning communities to address key issues and social issues that impact educational settings. This method empowers professionals within universities and schools alike to take ownership of their learning and development, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and participatory approaches.

In summary, action research encapsulates the essence of what it means to be a learning professional in a dynamic educational landscape. It is the embodiment of a commitment to lifelong learning and a testament to the capacity of educators to enact change . The value of action research lies in its ability to transform practitioners into researchers, where the quest for knowledge becomes a powerful conduit for change and innovation. Thus, for educators at every level, embracing the rigorous yet rewarding path of action research can unveil potent insights and propel educational practice to new heights.

Key Papers on Action Research

• Utilizing Action Research During Student Teaching by James O. Barbre and Brenda J. Buckner (2013): This study explores how action research can be effectively utilized during student teaching to enhance professional pedagogical disposition through active reflection. It emphasizes developing a reflective habit of mind crucial for teachers to be effective in their classrooms and adaptive to the changing needs of their students.
• Repositioning T eacher Action Research in Science Teacher Education by B. Capobianco and A. Feldman (2010): This paper discusses the promotion of action research as a way for teachers to improve their practice and students' learning for over 50 years, focusing on science education. It highlights the importance of action research in advancing knowledge about teaching and learning in science.
• Action research and teacher leadership by K. Smeets and P. Ponte (2009): This article reports on a case study into the influence and impact of action research carried out by teachers in a special school. It found that action research not only helps teachers to get to grips with their work in the classroom but also has an impact on the work of others in the school.
• Teaching about the Nature of Science through History: Action Research in the Classroom by J. Solomon, Jon Duveen, Linda Scot, S. McCarthy (1992): This article reports on 18 months of action research monitoring British pupils' learning about the nature of science using historical aspects. It indicates areas of substantial progress in pupils' understanding of the nature of science.
• Action Research in the Classroom by V. Baumfield, E. Hall, K. Wall (2008): This comprehensive guide to conducting action research in the classroom covers various aspects, including deciding on a research question, choosing complementary research tools, collecting and interpreting data, and sharing findings. It aims to move classroom inquiry forward and contribute to professional development.

These studies highlight the significant role of action research in enhancing teacher effectiveness, student learning outcomes, and contributing to the broader educational community's knowledge and practices.

Enhance Learner Outcomes Across Your School

Download an Overview of our Support and Resources

We'll send it over now.

Please fill in the details so we can send over the resources.

What type of school are you?

We'll get you the right resource

Is your school involved in any staff development projects?

Are your colleagues running any research projects or courses?

Do you have any immediate school priorities?

Please check the ones that apply.

Download your resource

Thanks for taking the time to complete this form, submit the form to get the tool.

Classroom Practice

Senators studied AI for a year. Critics call the result ‘pathetic.’

The 31-page “road map” calls for a $32 billion infusion for AI research and development and asks congressional committees to develop legislation.

For much of the last year, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer and a bipartisan group of his colleagues have been huddling with tech CEOs, civil rights leaders and top researchers to develop an “all hands on deck” plan to address the urgent threats posed by artificial intelligence.

This week, the Senate AI Gang, as the group is known, unveiled the fruits of that effort, celebrating a sprawling 31-page road map that calls for billions of new funding in AI research as the “deepest” AI legislative document to date. But consumer advocates are furious about the final product, saying that the document is far too vague about how it will protect people from AI’s harms and that the senators’ initiative is sucking up the oxygen from other efforts to aggressively regulate the technology.

“This road map leads to a dead end,” Evan Greer, the director of Fight for the Future, an advocacy group, said in a statement that called the plan “pathetic” — a criticism echoed by others.

The immediate divisions over the plan bring to the fore the challenges of regulating the swiftly evolving technology in a deeply polarized Congress during an election year. Rather than pursuing a single comprehensive bill, the AI Gang has decided to delegate the legislative work to Senate committees, which are at drastically different stages in their efforts to understand the promise and peril of AI.

Schumer (D-N.Y.) expects that some AI bills could pass the Senate and potentially the House by the end of the year, but he noted that much of this work will extend into the next Congress. But the plan faces an uncertain future next year, as key lawmakers working on tech issues are scheduled to retire and the 2024 elections could reshape the leadership of Congress and the White House. The Senate Rules Committee on Wednesday advanced a trio of bipartisan bills addressing the role of AI in elections, which Schumer noted was one of the most urgent issues facing Congress amid the 2024 elections.

GET CAUGHT UP Summarized stories to quickly stay informed

How Florida’s abortion law is affecting East Coast abortion clinics

In France, two young politicians are in a bitter fight over the future of Europe

Schools that never needed AC are now overheating. Fixes will cost billions.

World Central Kitchen draws criticism for its neutrality in Gaza

A Black rising star lost his elite orchestra job. He won’t go quietly.

“We’re not going to wait on legislation that addresses every aspect of AI in society,” Schumer said. “If some areas are ready earlier than others, they should go forward.”

Other congressional committees are just beginning their work on artificial intelligence, as major tech companies are plowing forward with ever more advanced systems intended to further entrench the technology in consumers’ lives. On Monday, OpenAI announced a handful of upgrades that will make it easier for people to talk to ChatGPT, drawing comparisons with the 2013 film “Her,” which depicts a human falling in love with a digital voice assistant. On Tuesday, Google announced that it would roll out this week AI-generated answers to the top of everyone’s search results in the United States, transforming the way people access information online.

Lawmakers have repeatedly promised that they will regulate AI with greater urgency than they did with social media. For the last half decade, lawmakers have held numerous hearings and introduced a flurry of bills to address the ways social media allegedly harms children, undermines elections and imperils users’ privacy. But to date, the main social media legislation that Congress has passed is a law that could force a sale or ban of TikTok. With the new roadmap, critics say lawmakers risk repeating the same mistakes.

Tech industry groups were largely supportive of the road map. TechNet, whose members include OpenAI, Google and Meta, said in a statement that the directive “will strengthen America’s global competitiveness in AI and emerging technologies” through providing $32 billion for AI research and development, which will be distributed to the Energy Department, Commerce Department, National Science Foundation, and National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Tony Samp, the head of AI policy at the DLA Piper law firm and former founding director of the Senate AI working group, said the Senate’s process helped raise awareness about AI among lawmakers and helped prompt ideas for how to legislate. DLA Piper, including Samp, has lobbied on behalf of clients including OpenAI, according to federal disclosures.

“There are some who think you can wave a magic wand and Congress could pass comprehensive AI legislation, but that thinking ignores the political realities in the United States, as well as the real objectives of the AI Insight Forums and the road map,” Samp told The Washington Post.

Reggie Babin, a senior counsel at the law firm Akin and a former chief counsel to Schumer, told The Post that the working group succeeded in its goals. Babin has lobbied on behalf of Akin clients, including Adobe, according to federal disclosures.

“The goal of the process was to figure out how to make sure that 80 percent of stakeholders in the middle of this conversation are satisfied while preserving space for continued engagement on all fronts,” he said. “I think the working group hit that mark.”

The lawmakers gathered input for the road map in private sessions dubbed Insight Forums. Over the nine sessions, lawmakers met with executives including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, as well as consumer advocates and civil rights leaders, such as Maya Wiley, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a Washington-based group that represents a number of civil rights organizations. Liz Shuler, the president of the AFL-CIO who participated in the Insight Forums, called the road map an “important start” to passing AI legislation.

But civil society leaders were frustrated that the road map only made a cursory mention of AI bias, amid widespread concerns that the technology can replicate and exacerbate harmful stereotypes. Nik Marda, a technical lead on AI governance at Mozilla, noted on X that “bias” was mentioned in the road map as many times as “space debris.”

Rashad Robinson, the president of the civil rights group Color of Change, said the report shows Schumer “is not taking AI seriously.” Robinson called for lawmakers to move swiftly to respond to the bias that AI can pose.

Schumer told The Post in a statement that he shares the goals of the advocates.

“Leader Schumer agrees with their goals and we’re going to continue to work closely with them as legislation is written,” said Schumer spokeswoman Allison Biasotti.

Greer said the report reads like industry had outsize influence over the process, and it was written by Altman and other tech lobbyists.

“They heard from experts about the urgency of addressing AI harms and then paid lip service to that while giving industry most of what they want: money and ‘light touch’ regulatory proposals,” Greer told The Post.

The United States’ efforts to regulate AI lag far behind those of the European Union, which last year advanced a wide-ranging AI Act that sets limits on AI based on how risky regulators deem an application to be. The E.U. AI Act, for instance, bans social scoring systems similar to those used in China, and it places transparency requirements on high-risk applications of AI in medical devices or employment settings.

Many observers hoped that the road map would provide clarity on a path forward for Congress to address some of the thorniest issues in AI governance that have divided the tech industry — including the future of copyright law and the growing debate over the regulation of AI models that are open source, or freely available to the public, without the guardrails that OpenAI, Google and Microsoft place on their models. But Schumer’s report doesn’t mention open source, and it largely punts issues of intellectual property rights to government agencies, directing lawmakers to review existing and forthcoming reports from the U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on AI.

In a briefing with reporters Tuesday night, Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a member of the AI Gang, said the report had “a high level of specificity” for a document of its size and scope. But senators acknowledged the report leaves key questions unanswered. The report calls for a $32 billion investment in nondefense AI research and development, but it does not specify how much funding should be directed to the military. The report also leaves key questions about how Congress should regulate consumer privacy in the age of AI to the committees.

“Where vagueness was required to come to an agreement, we embrace vagueness,” Young said.

But that strategy doesn’t work, said Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a Brown University professor who co-authored the White House’s AI Bill of Rights. He participated in the forums and felt as if lawmakers ignored the problems raised during the sessions.

“Embracing vagueness at this point is basically saying the status quo is just fine," he said.

The report “repackages” many issues around AI that have been debated on Capitol Hill for years, and its delivery may prompt some legislators to “yearn for more than just polished reiterations,” said Divyansh Kaushik, a vice president at Beacon Global Strategies, which advises companies on national security issues.

“After almost a year of hearings, briefings and forums, I think members are hungry for tangible, actionable steps and crisp legislative blueprints, something beyond the theoretical … a call for concrete, actionable strategies,” he said. “The real challenge begins now and it’s one for congressional committees: ensuring that this report does more than stir the pot, but rather sparks a sustained drive toward innovative and decisive policymaking to ensure American competitiveness on these critical technologies."

• High contrast
• Our mandate
• Our history
• Annual report
• PRESS CENTRE

Search UNICEF

• Leading Minds 2024: Climate action

Breaking the barriers and challenging the status quo

• Projects and reports

Despite international commitments, the burden of climate change is bringing loss of life, biodiversity and infrastructure. It presents a grave threat to children’s rights and prospects. A global mind shift is needed to bring about systemic change to protect our planet and prepare children and young people for the future. To get there, we need to assume responsibility and accelerate the transition.

So, from May 28-31, some of the world’s top thinkers – innovators, influencers, researchers, governments and others – will come together to pose bold questions and identify even bolder answers to one of the most pressing challenges for children.

Co-created by young people, Climate Action: Breaking the Barriers and Challenging the Status Quo will ask questions and examine priority breakthroughs on climate action, focusing on six key areas: loss and damage; eco-literacy, climate education and green skilling; equity in energy transition; climate justice; climate finance; and governance.

Loss and Damage

How is climate change creating new barriers to inclusion?  What are the systemic barriers to accelerating climate action?  

Loss and damage caused by climate change is no longer just theoretical. The loss of land, livelihoods, cultural heritage or even lives is already happening. And despite being the least responsible for causing the climate crisis, the children of today and tomorrow will face its impacts, including loss and damage, more acutely than any other generation to date. It is one of the greatest intergenerational injustices that children face today.

Yet children and young people and their rights are still largely absent from policy discussions and climate finance allocations. And where children and young people are considered, they are often treated only as vulnerable victims rather than as active agents of change.  

Eco-literacy, climate education and green skilling

What are the barriers to accelerating and scaling climate education strategies and approaches that will move the needle in accelerating climate action? Or is another paradigm shift needed to address the challenges that we face today?   

If children and young people are going to be prepared for climate shocks, contribute to building a world that is net zero, take action to protect their communities and advocate for action by their governments, then they need the right knowledge, skills and opportunities.

Yet education on climate change education is still not a priority in many countries, while budgetary commitments remain low, teacher readiness is poor and the capacities of education systems to mainstream climate education is weak.

But a significant milestone was reached in 2023, when 39 countries signed the  Declaration on Education and Climate Change , a critical step in improving climate change education. And exciting new developments are occurring across many different countries in testing and scaling innovative learning paths, supporting youth as learners and changemakers in both formal and non-formal education settings.

As the green economy grows there will be more and more opportunities for young people to build livelihoods and make meaningful contributions through green skills acquisition in a wide range of areas, from renewable energy technologies to sustainable agriculture to green construction. 

Equity in energy transition

What are the barriers hindering investment of the private sector in a people-centered, fair, equitable and just transition and how can these be overcome?   

In the past decade, remarkable progress has been made in transitioning to renewable energy. But that transition is more often driven by short-term gains and corporate interests than it is the welfare of people and societies – and that has often hit the most vulnerable.

And while there has been a growing recognition of the critical role the private sector can play in building the resilience of vulnerable communities to the impacts of climate change, investment there remains poor.

To add to the challenge, there is limited knowledge and data on the cost benefits of investing in building resilience. To fill this gap, UNICEF has commissioned Economist Impact to develop a cost-benefit model that can be used and replicated in any country to understand and quantify potential impacts of private sector investment. The report will be launched during the conference. 

Climate justice

What are some of the systemic barriers that do not allow children and young people to demand climate justice?  What paradigm shift is needed in order for transformative change to happen in the climate justice space?  

Children are uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. That’s one of the reasons that climate change is one of the greatest intergenerational injustices that children face today. 

The Convention on the Rights of the Child calls for equitable and inclusive responses to climate change that prioritize their needs and rights, particularly those from disadvantaged and marginalized backgrounds. And it reaffirms their right to live in a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

Already dozens of cases have been brought to tribunals and courts around the world on behalf of children and youth. As the urgency to accelerate climate action grows over coming years, so too will demands for climate justice. 

Climate finance

What are the key systemic barriers in investing in climate action for children and how can they be overcome? 

According to the United Nations Environment Programme , the adaptation finance needs of developing countries are 10-18 times as big as international public finance flows – that’s over 50 per cent higher than the previous estimate.

And around three-quarters of climate finance is raised and spent in advanced economies.

That’s already a problem. But compounding that problem is that so little of climate funding commitments support children. Just 2.4 per cent of climate finance from key multilateral funds supports projects that are child responsive. Even when children are considered, they are considered victims and not agents of change – with just 1 per cent of those climate funds involving children in their design or monitoring.

Clearly, climate finance is – not yet – working for children and young people. 

In what ways can the integration of youth perspectives enhance the responsiveness and effectiveness of governance models in addressing climate change and what are barriers that hindering this integration? 

Young minds bring fresh perspectives, unbridled enthusiasm and a deep stake in the future, making their input crucial in crafting solutions that are both forward-thinking and grounded in the realities of our environmental and social challenges.

At a community level, the amplified voice of youth in making decisions can act as a catalyst, driving change from the ground up.

Yet, the traditional model of top-down governance in sectors like energy, agriculture, urban planning, hinders the effective design and implementation of policies that address both the realities of climate change and the needs of communities.

And these days, it is also vital to consider shrinking civic spaces and backsliding democracies. These political shifts could profoundly affect the ability of young people to engage in policy and decision-making, further eroding their trust in institutions.  

We are grateful to the City of Florence for their hospitality. 

Leading Minds harnesses the insight, foresight, and energy of youth, combining it with the wisdom and experience of world leaders to reimagine global leadership. The Leading Minds Fellowship on Climate provides a unique platform for young leaders to shape the agenda of the Leading Minds Conference 2024, focused on Climate Breakthroughs. 

Leading Minds Fellowship on Climate is an intensive, six-month fellowship programme designed to foster and harness the talents of young climate leaders aged 15-25. 

Participants are actively involved in identifying cutting-edge breakthroughs and solutions to drive impactful change in climate action and advocacy. 

By empowering these young leaders , we cultivate community-driven strategies to drive policy development, prioritize social equity within financial structures, advance renewable energy initiatives, advocate for environmental education as a catalyst for systemic change and chart the way for democratic governance to prepare and engage youth in building a sustainable future today. During the two months prior to the Leading Minds Conference, UNICEF’s Leading Minds Fellows on Climate Action worked to identify solutions, drive commitment, and inspire action within UNICEF and beyond.

The following publications have been prepared with Fellows as pre-conference materials that have helped shape the agenda and center the discussion around child rights and the role of young people in the climate space:

Discover youth insights on climate change and breakthrough solutions, and dive deeper through the following publications: 

• Emerging Horizons: Youth Insights on Climate Change and Breakthrough Solutions:  A synthesis report of the participatory workshop which informed the conference's key thematic areas.
• Twelve Thought Pieces on Climate Activism : A collection of 12 personal narratives from Leading Minds Fellows on Climate about how the climate crisis affects them and what they are doing in their communities and at global level to drive change on the climate agenda.
• Collapse, Compromise or Collective Action: Youth Stories on the Future of Climate Action:  A collection of future-inspired stories informed by a Horizon scanning exercise aimed fostering innovation, enhancing preparedness, and staying ahead in the rapidly evolving landscape of climate change.  

Files available for download

Related topics, more to explore.

Video games can have a positive impact on children – if they are designed right, says new study

Six ways to make Loss and Damage finance work for children

Climate change is hurting kids. Here is how we can address the harm

The Antidote to Ageism

Understanding the importance of intergenerational collaboration

Celebrating women in education

A closer look at female teachers and school leaders

Suggested Searches

• Climate Change
• Expedition 64
• Mars perseverance
• SpaceX Crew-2
• International Space Station
• View All Topics A-Z

Humans in Space

Earth & climate, the solar system, the universe, aeronautics, learning resources, news & events.

NASA, IBM Research to Release New AI Model for Weather, Climate

NASA Tool Gets Ready to Image Faraway Planets

NASA, Sierra Space Deliver Dream Chaser to Florida for Launch Preparation

• Search All NASA Missions
• A to Z List of Missions
• Upcoming Launches and Landings
• Spaceships and Rockets
• Communicating with Missions
• James Webb Space Telescope
• Hubble Space Telescope
• Why Go to Space
• Astronauts Home
• Commercial Space
• Destinations
• Living in Space
• Explore Earth Science
• Earth, Our Planet
• Earth Science in Action
• Earth Multimedia
• Earth Science Researchers
• Pluto & Dwarf Planets
• Asteroids, Comets & Meteors
• The Kuiper Belt
• The Oort Cloud
• Skywatching
• The Search for Life in the Universe
• Black Holes
• The Big Bang
• Dark Energy & Dark Matter
• Earth Science
• Planetary Science
• Astrophysics & Space Science
• The Sun & Heliophysics
• Biological & Physical Sciences
• Lunar Science
• Citizen Science
• Astromaterials
• Aeronautics Research
• Human Space Travel Research
• Science in the Air
• NASA Aircraft
• Flight Innovation
• Supersonic Flight
• Air Traffic Solutions
• Green Aviation Tech
• Drones & You
• Technology Transfer & Spinoffs
• Space Travel Technology
• Technology Living in Space
• Manufacturing and Materials
• Science Instruments
• For Kids and Students
• For Educators
• For Colleges and Universities
• For Professionals
• Science for Everyone
• Requests for Exhibits, Artifacts, or Speakers
• STEM Engagement at NASA
• NASA's Impacts
• Centers and Facilities
• Directorates
• Organizations
• People of NASA
• Internships
• Our History
• Doing Business with NASA
• Get Involved
• Aeronáutica
• Ciencias Terrestres
• Sistema Solar
• All NASA News
• Video Series on NASA+
• Newsletters
• Social Media
• Media Resources
• Upcoming Launches & Landings
• Virtual Events
• Sounds and Ringtones
• Interactives
• STEM Multimedia

Clare Luckey: Shaping the Future of Mars Missions and Inspiring the Artemis Generation 

Hubble Captures a Bright Spiral in the Queen’s Hair

Galaxies Actively Forming in Early Universe Caught Feeding on Cold Gas

Welcome Back to Planet Earth, Expedition 70 Crew! 

Astronaut Exercise

Eleasa Kim: Pioneering CLDP Payload Operations and Cultural Integration

NASA “Wildfire Digital Twin” Pioneers New AI Models and Streaming Data Techniques for Forecasting Fire and Smoke

5 Things to Know About NASA’s Tiny Twin Polar Satellites

NASA’s Psyche Fires Up Its Sci-Fi-Worthy Thrusters

NASA’s Juno Provides High-Definition Views of Europa’s Icy Shell

The Next Full Moon is the Flower, Corn, or Corn Planting Moon

NASA’s TESS Finds Intriguing World Sized Between Earth, Venus

Open Science News

E.11 Consortium in Biological Sciences Clarification on how to Address Eligibility

Updated Points of Contact for LDAP, MDAP, and DDAP

NASA, Industry to Start Designing More Sustainable Jet Engine Core

Aviary: A New NASA Software Platform for Aircraft Modelling

NASA’s X-59 Passes Milestone Toward Safe First Flight 

NASA’s Compact Infrared Cameras Enable New Science

Tech Today: From Spacesuits to Racing Suits

NASA Around the World: Interns Teach Virtual Lessons in Kenya

Jennifer Scott Williams: Leading the Next Giant Leap in Space Exploration and Championing STEM Advocacy

40 Years Ago: NASA Selects its 10th Group of Astronauts

Diez maneras en que los estudiantes pueden prepararse para ser astronautas

Astronauta de la NASA Marcos Berríos

Resultados científicos revolucionarios en la estación espacial de 2023

Spotted: ‘death star’ black holes in action.

Visual Description:

News media contact.

A team of astronomers have studied 16  supermassive black holes  that are firing powerful beams into space, to track where these beams, or jets, are pointing now and where they were aimed in the past, as reported in our  latest press release . Using  NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory  and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) National Radio Astronomical Observatory’s (NRAO) Very Large Baseline Array (VLBA), they found that some of the beams have changed directions by large amounts.

These two Chandra images show hot gas in the middle of the  galaxy cluster  Abell 478 (left) and the galaxy group NGC 5044 (right). The center of each image contains one of the sixteen black holes firing beams outwards. Each black hole is in the center of a  galaxy  embedded in the hot gas.

In the images below, labels and the  radio  images appear. Ellipses show a pair of cavities in the hot gas for Abell 478 (left) and ellipses show two pairs of cavities for NGC 5044 (right). These cavities were carved out by the beams millions of years ago, giving the directions of the beams in the past. An X shows the location of each supermassive black hole.

The VLBA images are shown as insets, which reveal where the beams are currently pointing, as seen from Earth. The radio images are both much smaller than the  X-ray  images. For Abell 478 the radio image is about 3% of the width of the Chandra image and for NGC 5044 the radio image is about 4% of the Chandra image’s width.

A comparison between the Chandra and VLBA images shows that the beams for Abell 478 changed direction by about 35 degrees and the beams for NGC 5044 changed direction by about 70 degrees.

Across the entire sample the researchers found that about a third of the 16 galaxies have beams that are pointing in completely different directions than they were before. Some have changed directions by nearly 90 degrees in some cases, and over timescales between one million years and a few tens of millions of years. Given that the black holes are of the order of 10 billion years old, this represents a relatively rapid change for these galaxies.

Black holes generate beams when material falls onto them via a spinning disk of matter and some of it then gets redirected outward. The direction of the beams from each of these giant black holes, which are likely spinning, is thought to align with the rotation axis of the black hole, meaning that the beams point along a line connecting the poles.

These beams are thought to be perpendicular to the disk. If material falls towards the black holes at a different angle that is not parallel to the disk, it could affect the direction of the black hole’s rotation axes, changing the direction of the beams.

Scientists think that beams from black holes and the cavities they carve out play an important role in how many  stars  form in their galaxies. The beams pump energy into the hot gas in and around the galaxy, preventing it from cooling down enough to form huge numbers of new stars. If the beams change directions by large amounts, they can tamp down star formation across much larger areas of the galaxy.

The paper describing these results was published in the January 20th, 2024 issue of The Astrophysical Journal, and is  available here . The authors are Francesco Ubertosi (University of Bologna in Italy), Gerritt Schellenberger (Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian), Ewan O’Sullivan (CfA), Jan Vrtilek (CfA), Simona Giacintucci (Naval Research Laboratory), Laurence David (CfA), William Forman (CfA), Myriam Gitti (University of Bologna), Tiziana Venturi (National Institute of Astrophysics—Institute of Radio Astronomy in Italy), Christine Jones (CfA), and Fabrizio Brighenti (University of Bologna).

NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center manages the Chandra program. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory’s Chandra X-ray Center controls science from Cambridge Massachusetts and flight operations from Burlington, Massachusetts.

Read more from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory.

For more Chandra images, multimedia and related materials, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission/chandra-x-ray-observatory/

This image contains two X-ray images presented side by side, separated by a thin, gray line. On the left is an image of galaxy cluster Abell 478, and on the right is an image of galaxy group NGC 5044.

The X-ray image of Abell 478 resembles a gooey, blue substance that has been spilled on a black canvas. Most of the image is covered in this blue goo texture, which is hot gas in X-ray light, however there are cavities where no blue texture is present. At the center of the image is a bright, white region. Within the white region, too small to identify, exists Abell 478’s supermassive black hole.

The X-ray image of NGC 5044, on our right, is more pixelated than the image of Abell 478. It resembles blue television static or noise, that is present on a television when no transmission signal is detected. Most of the image is covered in this blue static, however there are cavities where no blue static is present. At the center of the image is a bright, white region. Within the white region, too small to identify, exists NGC 5044’s supermassive black hole.

Megan Watzke Chandra X-ray Center Cambridge, Mass. 617-496-7998

Jonathan Deal Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Ala. 256-544-0034

Laidlaw Foundation Gift Expands Research and Leadership for Duke Students

Share this story.

Duke University has received a $1.125 million gift from the Laidlaw Foundation that will greatly expand the Hart Leadership Program’s capacity to support community-engaged experiential learning opportunities for Duke undergraduate students.

The gift will establish the Laidlaw Research and Leadership Scholarship Program at Duke University, a 24-month leadership development program for cohorts of up to 25 students. During their two years in the program, Laidlaw Scholars will receive support for two summers of community-engaged research and civic practice, beginning in the summer of 2025. At full capacity, the program will provide support for up to 50 undergraduate students per year. The initial gift is for three years and is subject to renewal.

The program aligns with Duke’s strategic vision of transforming teaching and learning through experiential education, creating more opportunities for undergraduate research, and building community engagement in North Carolina and globally.

“Sanford is deeply committed to deepening the undergraduate experience of students,” Dean Judith Kelley said. “This program provides robust learning and global connections, and this gift augments the already extraordinary track record of the Hart Leadership Program in training undergraduate students for lives of leadership and service. We are grateful for the support of the Laidlaw Foundation for our students.”

The Laidlaw Scholars Program is designed to develop ethical leaders in every sector and field of interest. Through academic courses, experiential learning programs, community-based research and co-curricular initiatives, Duke students will be challenged to develop their own frameworks for leadership and work alongside others toward a common purpose.

Andrew Nurkin, director of the Hart Leadership Program, said the Laidlaw Scholars Program at Duke will incorporate all of the hallmark elements of the Hart Leadership Program: learning leadership through experience, conducting research with a civic mission, connecting classroom learning to community contexts, practicing mindful reflection, and growing alongside a strong community of peers and practitioners.

“Our aim has always been for each student to develop their own sense of public purpose in community with others,” Nurkin said.

The Laidlaw Scholars Program will be open to all first- and second-year Duke students. Students will apply in the fall, be required to take a spring gateway seminar, and receive full funding for two summers to participate in the program. The first summer will be focused on research with Duke faculty advisors, and the second summer will focus on “leadership-in-action” projects. At least one of the two summers will be spent outside the United States. Students will also receive ongoing leadership development through an overnight retreat and a colloquium dinner series, a certificate in ethical leadership from the University of Oxford, as well as access to the international Laidlaw Scholars Network.  

The Laidlaw Scholars Network includes some of the world’s top research universities, creating opportunities for collaboration at both the undergraduate and faculty levels. The network is comprised of 19 top universities in Europe, North America and Asia, including the University of Oxford, the London School of Economics, Columbia University, Georgetown University, Brown University, University of Hong Kong–and now Duke.

Susanna Kempe, CEO of the Laidlaw Foundation, said, “We are absolutely delighted to be partnering with Duke University, whose commitment to promoting an intellectual environment built on free and open inquiry, and developing students to lead with unwaveringly high ethical standards, completely aligns with our purpose in funding Laidlaw Scholars at the top universities in the world.”

The program at Duke will feature shared aspects, as well as specific features that make it “uniquely Duke.” One unique feature will be a Duke gateway class on community engaged research and leadership, required in the spring before the first summer of the program. In addition, the summer of research will be team-based and led by Duke faculty.

“We are thrilled that in the coming years up to 50 Duke students each summer will be expanding their research and leadership skills through this prestigious program,” Nurkin said. “This program will offer characteristic Hart Leadership moments found in our other programs while adding valuable new opportunities for students to grow as leaders, scholars and global citizens.”

Learn more about the Hart Leadership Program: https://hart.sanford.duke.edu/

About the Laidlaw Foundation: The Laidlaw Foundation invests in the education of the underprivileged and underrepresented in order to break the cycle of poverty, reduce inequality and develop a new generation of ethical leaders. Learn more: https://laidlawfoundation.com/

Related Stories

2024 Graduation Stories: Journalism at Duke

Sanford Celebrates the Class of 2024

Graduation Stories 2024: Grace Endrud

Study models how ketamine's molecular action leads to its effects on the brain

A World Health Organization Essential Medicine, ketamine is widely used at varying doses for sedation, pain control, general anesthesia and as a therapy for treatment-resistant depression. While scientists know its target in brain cells and have observed how it affects brain-wide activity, they haven't known entirely how the two are connected. A new study by a research team spanning four Boston-area institutions uses computational modeling of previously unappreciated physiological details to fill that gap and offer new insights into how ketamine works.

"This modeling work has helped decipher likely mechanisms through which ketamine produces altered arousal states as well as its therapeutic benefits for treating depression," co-senior author Emery N. Brown, Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Computational Neuroscience and Medical Engineering at The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory at MIT, as well as an anesthesiologist at MGH and a Professor at Harvard Medical School.

The researchers from MIT, Boston University, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard University said the predictions of their model, published May 20 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , could help physicians make better use of the drug.

"When physicians understand what's mechanistically happening when they administer a drug, they can possibly leverage that mechanism and manipulate it," said study lead author Elie Adam, a Research Scientist at MIT who will soon join the Harvard Medical School faculty and launch a lab at MGH. "They gain a sense of how to enhance the good effects of the drug and how to mitigate the bad ones."

Blocking the door

The core advance of the study involved biophysically modeling what happens when ketamine blocks the "NMDA" receptors in the brain's cortex -- the outer layer where key functions such as sensory processing and cognition take place. Blocking the NMDA receptors modulates the release of excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate.

When the neuronal channels (or doorways) regulated by the NMDA receptors open, they typically close slowly (like a doorway with a hydraulic closer that keeps it from slamming), allowing ions to go in and out of neurons, thereby regulating their electrical properties, Adam said. But, the channels of the receptor can be blocked by a molecule. Blocking by magnesium helps to naturally regulate ion flow. Ketamine, however, is an especially effective blocker.

Blocking slows the voltage build-up across the neuron's membrane that eventually leads a neuron to "spike," or send an electrochemical message to other neurons. The NMDA doorway becomes unblocked when the voltage gets high. This interdependence between voltage, spiking and blocking can equip NMDA receptors with faster activity than its slow closing speed might suggest. The team's model goes further than ones before by representing how ketamine's blocking and unblocking affect neural activity.

"Physiological details that are usually ignored can sometimes be central to understanding cognitive phenomena," said co-corresponding author Nancy Kopell, a professor of math at BU. "The dynamics of NMDA receptors have more impact on network dynamics than has previously been appreciated."

With their model, the scientists simulated how different doses of ketamine affecting NMDA receptors would alter the activity of a model brain network. The simulated network included key neuron types found in the cortex: one excitatory type and two inhibitory types. It distinguishes between "tonic" interneurons that tamp down network activity and "phasic" interneurons that react more to excitatory neurons.

The team's simulations successfully recapitulated the real brain waves that have been measured via EEG electrodes on the scalp of a human volunteer who received various ketamine doses and the neural spiking that has been measured in similarly treated animals that had implanted electrode arrays. At low doses, ketamine increased brain wave power in the fast gamma frequency range (30-40 Hz). At the higher doses that cause unconsciousness, those gamma waves became periodically interrupted by "down" states where only very slow frequency delta waves occur. This repeated disruption of the higher frequency waves is what can disrupt communication across the cortex enough to disrupt consciousness.

But how? Key findings

Importantly, through simulations, they explained several key mechanisms in the network that would produce exactly these dynamics.

The first prediction is that ketamine can disinhibit network activity by shutting down certain inhibitory interneurons. The modeling shows that natural blocking and unblocking kinetics of NMDA-receptors can let in a small current when neurons are not spiking. Many neurons in the network that are at the right level of excitation would rely on this current to spontaneously spike. But when ketamine impairs the kinetics of the NMDA receptors, it quenches that current, leaving these neurons suppressed. In the model, while ketamine equally impairs all neurons, it is the tonic inhibitory neurons that get shut down because they happen to be at that level of excitation. This releases other neurons, excitatory or inhibitory from their inhibition allowing them to spike vigorously and leading to ketamine's excited brain state. The network's increased excitation can then enable quick unblocking (and reblocking) of the neurons' NMDA receptors, causing bursts of spiking.

Another prediction is that these bursts become synchronized into the gamma frequency waves seen with ketamine. How? The team found that the phasic inhibitory interneurons become stimulated by lots of input of the neurotransmitter glutamate from the excitatory neurons and vigorously spike, or fire. When they do, they send an inhibitory signal of the neurotransmitter GABA to the excitatory neurons that squelches the excitatory firing, almost like a kindergarten teacher calming down a whole classroom of excited children. That stop signal, which reaches all the excitatory neurons simultaneously, only lasts so long, ends up synchronizing their activity, producing a coordinated gamma brain wave.

"The finding that an individual synaptic receptor (NMDA) can produce gamma oscillations and that these gamma oscillations can influence network-level gamma was unexpected," said co-corresponding author Michelle McCarthy, a research assistant professor of math at BU. "This was found only by using a detailed physiological model of the NMDA receptor. This level of physiological detail revealed a gamma time scale not usually associated with an NMDA receptor."

So what about the periodic down states that emerge at higher, unconsciousness-inducing ketamine doses? In the simulation, the gamma-frequency activity of the excitatory neurons can't be sustained for too long by the impaired NMDA-receptor kinetics. The excitatory neurons essentially become exhausted under GABA inhibition from the phasic interneurons. That produces the down state. But then, after they have stopped sending glutamate to the phasic interneurons, those cells stop producing their inhibitory GABA signals. That enables the excitatory neurons to recover, starting a cycle anew.

Antidepressant connection?

The model makes another prediction that might help explain how ketamine exerts its antidepressant effects. It suggests that the increased gamma activity of ketamine could entrain gamma activity among neurons expressing a peptide called VIP. This peptide has been found to have health promoting effects, such as reducing inflammation, that last much longer than ketamine's effects on NMDA receptors. The research team proposes that the entrainment of these neurons under ketamine could increase the release of the beneficial peptide, as observed when these cells are stimulated in experiments. This also hints at therapeutic features of ketamine that may go beyond anti-depressant effects. The research team acknowledges, however, that this connection is speculative and awaits specific experimental validation.

"The understanding that the sub cellular details of the NMDA receptor can lead to increased gamma oscillations was the basis for a new theory about how ketamine may work for treating depression," Kopell said.

Additional co-authors of the study are Marek Kowalski, Oluwaseun Akeju, and Earl K. Miller.

The JPB Foundation, The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, The Simons Center for The Social Brain, the National Institutes of Health, George J. Elbaum (MIT '59, SM '63, PhD '67), Mimi Jensen, Diane B. Greene (MIT, SM '78), Mendel Rosenblum, Bill Swanson, and annual donors to the Anesthesia Initiative Fund supported the research.

• Nervous System
• Psychology Research
• Parkinson's Research
• Brain Tumor
• Neuroscience
• Brain Injury
• Illegal Drugs
• Intelligence
• Neural network
• Neurobiology
• Artificial neural network
• Functional neuroimaging
• Multiple sclerosis
• Memory-prediction framework

Story Source:

Materials provided by Picower Institute at MIT . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Elie Adam, Marek Kowalski, Oluwaseun Akeju, Earl K. Miller, Emery N. Brown, Michelle M. McCarthy, Nancy Kopell. Ketamine can produce oscillatory dynamics by engaging mechanisms dependent on the kinetics of NMDA receptors . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 2024; 121 (22) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2402732121

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Symbiotic Bacteria Communicate With Plants
• Birdsong and Human Voice: Same Genetic Blueprint
• Molecular Dysregulations in PTSD and Depression
• Look, Then Listen to 1 Person in a Crowd: AI
• Predicting Individual Cancer Risk
• Sexual Parasitism Helped Anglerfish Enter ...
• Treating Cataracts and Other Eye Conditions
• Early Arrival of Palaeolithic People On Cyprus
• Networks Regulating Gene Function in Human Brain
• Birth of Universe's Earliest Galaxies

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

• Natural Hazards Center
• Vision and Mission
• Advisory Board
• How to Contribute
• In the News
• Center Staff
• Directors 1976-Present
• Mary Fran Myers Scholarship
• Disability and Disasters Award
• Student Paper Competition
• Mary Fran Myers Gender and Disaster Award
• Press/Contact Us
• Disaster Research - News You Can Use
• Current Issue
• Issue Index
• Research Counts
• Children and Disasters
• Mass Sheltering
• Disaster Cycle
• Equity and Inclusion
• Research to Practice Publications
• Publications Index
• Research Briefs
• Community Engagement Briefs
• Director’s Corner
• Director’s Corner Index
• Quick Response Reports
• Mitigation Matters Reports
• Weather Ready Reports
• Public Health Reports
• Legacy Publications
• Natural Hazards Observer
• Natural Hazards Informer
• Monograph Series
• Working Papers
• Our Scholarship
• Books and Monographs
• Journal Articles
• Book Chapters
• Making Mitigation Work
• CONVERGE Training Modules
• Tribal Listening Sessions
• Indigenous Sovereignty and Emergency Response
• NSF Enabling Program
• 2024 Workshop
• 2024 Researchers Meeting
• 2024 Practitioners Meeting
• Save the Dates
• Workshop History
• Past Workshops
• Quick Response Research
• Special Call: Climate and Health
• Public Health Disaster Research
• Weather Ready Research
• Mitigation Matters Research
• Current Projects and Grants
• Completed Projects and Grants
• Dissertations
• General Interest
• Upcoming Conferences
• Webinars and Training
• Documentaries
• Resource Lists
• Publication Outlets
• Book Series
• Award Opportunities
• Research Centers
• Disaster Grads Listserv

For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript.

Here are the instructions how to enable JavaScript in your web browser .

Narratives of Resilience: Storytelling in Disaster Research

Thur, July 18, 10:15 to 11:45 a.m. MDT Location: Pine

This session was inspired by the following submissions:

Lessons From the 2022 Yellowstone Floods: The Power of Documentary Film Interviews

Hugo Sindelar, Montana State University

Reflexivity in Storytelling: A Graduate Student Roundtable of Recent Fieldwork Experiences

Hannah Friedrich

Exploring Residential Decision-Making After Wildfire With Photovoice

Ronald Schumann, University of North Texas Alex Greer, State University of New York at Albany Sherri Binder, Brokopp Binder Research and Consulting Miranda Mockrin, U.S. Forest Service

Exploring the Community Impacts of 2017 and 2022 Hurricanes in Puerto Rico

Diana Ramirez-Rios, State University of New York at Buffalo Maria Carolina Torrado-Bayona, University of the North, Colombia Angelo Soto-Vergel, State University of New York at Buffalo

Community Narratives: Influencing Participatory Action Research Cycles, Processes, and Researchers

Haleh Mehdipour, University of Florida

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.