Aksjonsforskning – ansats til en historisk systematikk

Eikeland, Olav

doi:10.23865/noasp.121.ch7

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But such arguments are not the main reasons why conventional researchers should be interested in action 1 Further arguments and references to other authors and research literature indicating what I try to argue here are to be found in e.g. Eikeland (1985Eikeland ( , 1995Eikeland ( , 1997Eikeland ( , 1998Eikeland ( , 2001Eikeland ( , 2006aEikeland ( , 2006bEikeland ( , 2006cEikeland ( , 2006dEikeland ( , 2007aEikeland ( , 2007b. Interested readers will also find my reasons for thinking that answers to almost all the challenges raised in this text can be developed by taking seriously into account the more than 2000 years old works of Aristotle, among many others, of course.…”

mentioning

confidence: 82%

Why Should Mainstream Social Researchers Be Interested in Action Research?

Eikeland

2024

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The essay tries to argue why conventional researchers are obliged as researchers to be interested in certain forms of action research. The 60 years of ignorance have been illegitimate. The essay starts by listing two commonly encountered arguments paraphrasing Karl Marx and Francis Bacon via Kurt Lewin. It tries to show why a certain simplified reading of Marx cannot provide the necessary arguments. It then presents different variants of action research in order to single out approaches that according to this author require attention from mainstream social researchers. The action research approach emerging as central, by demonstrating its presence and effectiveness within mainstream research as well, is immanent critique. The method of research methodology is immanent critique. Immanent critique has to be demystified, however. When it is brought down to earth, immanent critique is really the kind of dialogical and experiential learning approach associated with apprenticeship learning and with organisational learning. This conclusion, making self-reflective practitioner-research the “hard-core” of action research, even internal to mainstream research, also requires a revision of the experimentalist-as-interventionist credo of action research.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 82%

Why Should Mainstream Social Researchers Be Interested in Action Research?

Eikeland

2024

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Educational action research consists of a broad family of complementary research approaches, strategies and methods for understanding and developing social practices within education. Since the 1950s, variants of educational action research have been developed both as a response to changing historical, cultural, social and political circumstances and with the intent to emphasise specific aims, methods or outcomes (Eikeland, 2020;Langelotz & Olin, 2022, pp. 1-2;Reason & Bradbury, 2006, p. xxii).…”

Section: On Educational Action Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Educational Action Research for Being

Salo

Rönnerman

2023

nse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article describes the characteristics of educational action research on the basis of its development in three Nordic countries, namely Sweden, Norway and Finland. The characterisation begins with a reflection on the Anglo-Saxon variants of action research within education. Thereafter follows a democratic and participatory conceptualisation of action research identified through a description of its formation within working life practices. This conceptualisation is traced back and interpreted in terms of bildning, collective pedagogical practices within folkbildning and in relation to pedagogik as a basis for teachers’ professional knowledge base. The characteristics of educational action research are encapsulated as action research for being.

show abstract

Are action researchers mixed up? Reviewing and revising basic assumptions, concepts, and terminology in and by means of action research

Eikeland¹,

Frimann²,

Hersted³

et al. 2022

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article explores and discusses whether we as action researchers are undermining or subverting our own intuitions and intentions, or at least not doing justice to it, when mixing a) learning and exploration through individual and collective action and reflection, with b) elements from conventional research methods. The article’s basic question: Can the intentions and results from a) be reduced to and validated fully or partly through b) conventional methods? Can we save the scientific legitimacy of action research by ultimately resorting to conventional methods and theories? What does action research uniquely add in relation to conventional learning, knowledge generation, and change projects? We discuss some challenges raised by questions like these, and suggest ways of handling them. After exploring ways of being “seduced” by conventional methods, we conclude by recommending a gnoseology to replace a one-dimensional epistemology, and by explaining and recommending the procedure of immanent critique as a way of developing insights and competencies from the inside of practices; i. e. a genuinely Action research method.

show abstract

Aksjonsforskning – ansats til en historisk systematikk

Cited by 3 publications

References 54 publications

Why Should Mainstream Social Researchers Be Interested in Action Research?

Why Should Mainstream Social Researchers Be Interested in Action Research?

Educational Action Research for Being

Are action researchers mixed up? Reviewing and revising basic assumptions, concepts, and terminology in and by means of action research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About