Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
http://jos.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Journal of Sociology can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jos.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/41/3/267
Gouldners child?
Some reflections on sociology and
participatory action research
Yoland Wadsworth
Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology and National
Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health, Australian National University1
Abstract
The article commences with a personal reflection on reflexive sociologys
methodological emergence from the critique of scientific positivism that took
place in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These paradigm wars reached something of a zenith around the time of the final opus of a key proponent, Alvin
Gouldner, in 1979. An uneasy truce was then reached under new conditions
of growing economic rationalism. While mainstream academic sociology
plunged into the coming crisis foretold by Gouldner, a number of its graduates continued to develop reflexive sociology, particularly in non-academic
workplaces. Initially called after Kuhn the new paradigm or critical interpretivism, it is now known by many names. Most common descriptors would
be participatory or action research, action learning or socio systems-thinking.
The approach has gradually achieved surprising critical mass in enormously
diverse organizational, workplace and community settings worldwide. The
article concludes by noting that many new paradigm assumptions have
begun to enter mainstream social research, which may be beginning to reengage with the action research field originally the offspring of sociological
thinking three decades earlier.
Keywords: action research, epistemology, history of ideas, paradigms, sociology of sociology
of us were working outside the academy, using research to inform the many
transformations of health, community and human service institutions taking place in the rigidified social order of a post-war welfare state. Back in
the academy I found a sociology that had come alive to the great paradigm
wars between positivism and reflexive interpretivism (Blaikie, 1993; Burrell
and Morgan, 1979; Cicourel, 1964; Ford, 1971; Giddens, 1976; Kuhn,
1973; Reinharz, 1979).2 It was a boom time for sociology engaging outside
universities. In 1976, the annual sociology conference counted its attendance in four figures and an unprecedented (and since unsurpassed) number of non-academics attended. The context for our work was the
culmination of a long economic boom, and a period of intense change.
Expanded government funding of new services was taking place in response
to changing community needs. Women, for example, had emerged from
the post-war home, seeking educations and jobs. People instutitutionalized
for their differences were demanding to live in ways others took for
granted. Manufacturing industry was moving off-shore and the economy
structurally readjusting. And new waves of non-English-speaking settlement communities from Turkey, Egypt, South America and Asia were
facing difficult futures and uncertain employment.
New forms of research were becoming popular that could work in and
with these conditions of change, diversity and complexity. These were being
applied, first, to attain richer, more meaningful understandings of localized
lived realities and critical analyses (including actors discomfort with
them), and, second, to assisting those actors draw new theory-informed
conclusions, and try out new practices generated from those conclusions as
part of the research.
In Table 1 I briefly revisit the comparative logic of the two paradigms
(Kuhn, 1973) as a way of identifying some of the significant epistemological roots of participatory action research3 a key contribution of sociology
to those debates.
It was difficult and often politically contested work, but seemed
inevitably so if one took up the challenge of sociological research in a constantly dialectical world of Mills private troubles and public issues
(1970). Indeed, the very dualities to which the new paradigm had initially
responded (van Krieken, 2002: 2678) began to dissolve. Distinctions such
as individualorganization, theorypractice, selfother and researcher
researched, continued to be radically re-understood as we action research
practitioner-theorists came to realize our apparent simultaneous separateness and connectedness within a living system or whole field. In some
ways it was a peculiarly postmodern epistemology, although one which
refused a nihilist relativism in its forms of active engagement.
When I wrote about the basics of what we were doing (1984, 1991), I
saw us as working in the mainstream of new paradigm social research. Like
much of my cohort, I seemed pretty much a child of Gouldners thinking
(i)
(i)
(ii)
(ii)
Table 1: Continued
Key features of positivist assumptions
(v)
(v)
Table 1: Continued
Key features of positivist assumptions
Table 1: Continued
Key features of positivist assumptions
(x)
(x)
And, so it seemed, increasingly, was the rest of the world, where something like a popular sociological imagination was giving substance to the
old argument that this was indeed a science that could be exercised by
others in their daily practice on the run (Wadsworth, 1984, 1991, 2001).
Indeed there has been an explosion of popular social practice-theorizing in
areas as diverse as architecture, business and management, land care, ecology, geography/environment, media and communications, indigenous and
cross-cultural work, public health, politics, anthropology, world development, religion, in child care centres, marriages or psychiatric wards, the
local chemists shop and womens magazines. It may arguably be in part a
lasting legacy of the era of popular sociology.
Yet, at exactly the point where the new paradigm seemed moderately
victorious, the long post-war boom gave way to recession. Throughout the
1980s, Government razor gangs terminated the glorious experiments with
funding the meeting of human needs (e.g. through a Guaranteed
Minimum Income, child care for all who needed it, universal health services
and an end to poverty). Critical social research faced an era of cutbacks and
competitive commercialization as the economic rationalist agenda took
only theorized about the world, the point is to change it but rather: if sociologists want to understand how the world changes, they must theorize in,
with and through its actual and always-changing practice (and practitioners).
This was the conclusion also of Kurt Lewin (1946), credited with coining the term action research, when he said the best way to understand an
organization was to change it, and that there was nothing so practical as a
good theory (Greenwood and Levin, 1998: 19). This was less a matter of
engaging in the field until one understands it (and possibly risking going
native or uncritically reproducing the same knowledge relations as before).
Instead, it was more like engaging actively and inevitably politically in the
field of knowledge-practice relations until they are understood through the
test of that engagement. This encompassed the inquiry process itself (and
the inquirers), as the line blurs between everyday knowing subjects who
think about their own and others social practice, and researchers who do
so too.
In the middle of the great paradigm wars era, in London in 1972, I
myself had first encountered the term participatory action research (PAR)
being used by some inner city urban social researchers. I had returned to
Australia to use this approach more explicitly in outer suburban community research of my own, and then with nurses across Victoria for the nursing union. Later I worked with a large group of consumers and staff in a
long sequence of collaborative inquiries into establishing consumer evaluation in acute psychiatric hospital practice. Eventually I and others like me
found we needed to look elsewhere than sociology to develop our
approach, and found a new, vibrant and growing international participatory action research community-of-practice (Wenger, 1998). Some of the
early key players in this were the Cornell University PAR Network, the
international PAR community focused in the decolonizing south, and the
World Congresses sponsored by the ALARPM Association (Action
Learning, Action Research and Process Management Association).
Ironically we were finding that business was experiencing its own forms
of complexity, change, conflict and uncertainty. To respond more effectively
to demands as diverse as those of unions and women workers, diversification and developing overseas markets, many were embracing variants of
action research (such as soft systems or quality improvement).
Old paradigm statistical population surveys and private consultants
expert reports remained the dominant methodology of choice for central
managerial governments and business. However, as the new economy
looked (albeit gingerly) to non-positivist forms of social research to work
more responsively and in bottom up ways, a growing and contradictory
space opened up for continual cycles of self-research and localized forms of
inquiry and change. This was potentially dangerous terrain for managers
and professionals in terms of retaining control, yet paradoxically made it
(and publishing) from the early period of the 1970s and 1980s.12 These
worked to sustain action research as a form of social science that contested
being circumscribed or trivialized by policy or managerial desires to impose
controls on the outcomes of inquiry processes, or inappropriate boundaries
on relevant stakeholders for inclusion, and remained conscious of the tendency to privilege the academic voice.
Over later decades these pioneer groups and individuals were joined by
thousands of practitioners, and from the late 1980s and early 1990s there
has been a proliferation of activity: State-based and national networks and
organizations, national and international conferences and activities, workplace and community-based projects, reports, articles, books, journals, centres, institutes, formal and informal education courses and higher degrees,
and job descriptions calling for action research.
From a time when individual practitioners may have felt isolated and a
bit up against it in settings where conventional positivist assumptions
about social research continued to prevail, there was now a sense of being
everywhere and in demand (Wadsworth, 2002: 4).
or project-based higher education studies. Sociology may gain from working more closely in relation to these richly nuanced settings with actors who
are both generating and testing grounded theory in live practice.
Academic sociologists may find this more satisfying than current more
instrumental efforts to industrially commercialize the academy. These latter
appear to abandon many of the conditions for highly original and creative
thinking by taking a managerial focus on short-term funds acquisition per
se and other goal-displacing performativity and commodity production
achievements.
As well, just as the paradigm wars fuelled participatory action research
with some deep and critical thinking, action research may again benefit
from exposure to sociological theorizing. In particular, there may be mutual
benefit in comparing sociologys lengthy engagement with theorizing the
social structural with the individual agentic, with participatory action
researchers traditional attention to the complex, systemic hermeneutics of
the social, organizational and institutional writ small as the personal and
individual.
Sociologys traditional separation from psychology was long well-justified. Generations of modernist attempts to relate the psychological and the
social (perhaps theorizing within the sound of a return to order) were
driven to see repression as functional within a consensus model of a unitary
society. Bob Connells still-relevant perhaps even premonitory account
of Dr Freud and the course of history noted that:
Freud, above all other psychologists, saw the individual as a differentiated unit,
internally divided, racked by ambivalence, packed to the ears with contradiction
and strife. He utterly failed to see society in the same light (1977: 128)
Yet there are forms of post-Freudian psychology that are doing exactly this
in the hands of critical constructivist action researchers. There is a puzzle
here. Robert van Krieken notes the eclipse of insights by Durkheim and
Weber regarding the real forces of the non-conscious, the psychological,
the personality, habit or habitus (2002: 268) yet describes few writers
as having written them back in after Parsons had written them out. How
did C. Wright Mills classic formulation come to be remembered as from
private troubles to public issues when his actual words were about the
intersections between biography and history within society, the relations
between the two, and the imaginative capacity to move back and forth
between private cherished/threatened values and their transcendent
manifestation in organizations and institutions (1970: ch. 1)? Even the
invention of a sociology of the body and a sociology of the emotions has
seemed to stay resolutely objectified and strangely disembodied.
Action research works with a discourse in which they are systemically
joined, experienced and contextualized in critical theory (joining Marx
with Freud) and contemporary group analytic theory associated with the
In conclusion
Alvin Goulder could just as easily have been writing in 2005 when he wrote
famously: It is no exaggeration to say that we theorize today within the
sound of guns (1970: vii). The practice of participatory and action oriented
forms of research, with their intellectual debt to sociologys and critical
sociologys contribution to the paradigm wars, offers a way of responding
to this. A reflexive sociology remains:
distinguished by its refusal to segregate the intimate or personal from the public and collective, or the everyday life from the occasional political act . [It] is
not a bundle of technical skills; it is a conception of how to live [while we]
live with the loose ends (Gouldner, 1971: 504, 510)
Acknowledgements
An initial version of this article was presented at the Research Committee on Logic
and Methodology (RC-33) session on Participatory Action Research, ISA 15th
World Congress of Sociology, Brisbane, Australia, July 2002, prepared with the support of an Adjunct Professorial position at the Institute for Social Research,
Swinburne University of Technology,
I acknowledge with thanks the support of a Public Health Residency at the
Australian National University, which assisted me to substantially rewrite and bring
the work to completion. I particularly acknowledge support and feedback from
Gabrielle Bammer, Wendy Gregory and Dorothy Broom. Finally I thank Bob
Connell for his ever-thoughtful feedback and encouragement.
Notes
1 Initial research for this article was carried out at the Institute for Social
Research, Swinburne University of Technology; substantial completion of the
research took place at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population
Health, Australian National University.
2 The critique of positivism or variants of it (such as realist, naturalistic, objectivist, absolutist or determinist structuralist methodologies, as well as derivative
theories such as structural functionalism) was the subject of extensive thinking
and writing during the 1960s and 1970s. An enormous literature developed
among US and UK writers such as Natanson, Schutz, Cicourel, Douglas,
Filstead, Andreski, Becker, Phillips, Giddens, Gouldner, Rex, Outhwaite, Rose
and Rose, Mulkay and Reinharz. In Australia there was a small but influential
literature reflecting the American and British critiques (for example in the work
of Suchting, Pelz, the Blaikie and Bubble-gum debate in the ANZJS 19778;
Sharp, Bell, Bell and Encel, Hunt, and Jennett and Cordero).
3 Academic terms are critical interpretivism or later, constructivism/constructionism. Note some writers (e.g. Crotty, 1998), reversed the meaning of the latter two, identifying constructivism as more subjectivist, verging-on-idealist,
when previously it had been the more common term used to unite critical poststructural and post-analytic understandings.
4 In a political economy of privatized individualism and embodied emotional
response, psychology ignited a popular desire for self-understanding (as well as
the business urge to efficiently manage), just as two decades earlier sociology
had ignited a popular desire to understand the social structures that held back
collective efforts to counter the dominant culture (as well as the government
urge to efficiently manage). By Christmas 2001, a telling sign in a Melbourne
branch of the multinational bookstore Borders, were the 27 bookcases devoted
to psychology and one to sociology.
5 Although economic rationalism was named by a sociologist who had long got
his hands dirty in the world of government practice, and had now got up close
and personal to the administrators whose myriad micro practices sustained it
(Pusey, 1991).
6 I acknowledge here an anonymous reviewers articulation of this.
7 For example Garry Dowsetts AIDS-related work, Priscilla Pyetts work with the
Victorian Prostitutes Collective, Bob Connells work with organized teachers or
Frank Vanclays farmers research.
8 Anthony Giddens, personal exchange, Cambridge, 1995.
9 Hugh Stretton, personal correspondence, 12 March 1980.
10 Most recently a search for a generic term for all these variants had yielded the
descriptor integration and implementation sciences as a contender at the
Australian National University http://www.anu.edu.au/iisn/overview.php
11 This systems thinking (or systemic thinking) is characterized by complex
causality, uncertainty and ecological-like feedback loops. It is distinguished in
action research from an older more mechanistic systems theory (or systems
dynamics) characterized by linear, predictable, measurable, structural-functional causality.
12 In Victoria: Deakin Universitys Education faculty and the State and
Commonwealth Education Departments formed a prominent grouping in education action research, policy, teacher development and schools improvement;
the Action Research Issues Association and Action Research Issues Centre, in
health, community development and human services; systems-thinkers, group
relations and organizational development in business, organizations and
management and also at the ANU Canberra Centre for Continuing Education;
in Brisbane: in higher education, organizational practice and management; in
NSW: the Hawksbury School of Human Ecology in agricultural, rural environmental and farmer uses of action research; in SA in vocational education and
training; and in WA in Aboriginal Studies and the feminist Centre for Research
on Women.
13 This list builds from Wadsworth (2001).
14 See for example the 2001 Boston Bridging the Gap: Between PAR and
Feminisms conference (Brydon-Miller et al., 2004).
Bibliography
Applebaum, R.P. (1977) The Future is Made, not Predicted Technocratic Planners
vs. Public Interest, Transaction/Society 14(4): 4953.
Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for Action A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to
Organisational Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bauman, Z. (1989) Sociological Responses to Postmodernity, Thesis Eleven 23:
3563
Berger, P.L. and T. Luckmann (1967) The Social Construction of Reality A Treatise
in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bion, R.W. (1961) Experiences in Groups. New York: Basic Books
Blaikie, N. (1993) Approaches to Social Inquiry. Cambridge: Polity.
Bohm, D., Factor, D., and P. Garrett (1991), Dialogue: A Proposal, Hawthorn
Cottage, Broad Marston Lane, Mickelton, Glos., England
Bouma, G. (2003) Religious identity and spirituality in a secular society, unpublished paper to the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of
Religion. Norfolk VA.
Brockman, J. (ed.) (1977) About Bateson. New York: E.P. Dutton.
Brydon-Miller, M., P. Maguire and A. McIntyre (eds) (2004) Travelling
Companions: Feminism, Teaching and Action Research. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Publishing.
Burrell, G. and G. Morgan (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis. London: Heinemann.
Cicourel, A. (1964) Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: Free Press.
Connell, R.W. (1977) Doctor Freud and the Course of History, Arena 478:
12032.
Crawford, F., S. Kippax, J. Onyx, J. Galut and P. Benton (1992) Emotion and
Gender: Constructing Meaning from Memory. London: Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998) The Foundations of Social Research Meaning and Perspective
in the Research Process. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Denzin, N. (1997) Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st
Century. London: Sage.
Durkheim, E. (1970) Suicide A Study of Sociology, ed. G. Simpson. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Flyvberg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and
How it can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, J. (1971) Paradigms and Fairytales: An Introduction to the Science of
Meanings, vols 1 and 2. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Freire, P. (1972) The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Biographical note
Yoland Wadsworth has worked as a research sociologist practitioner, theorist, facilitator, activist and consultant for 34 years. She has authored
Australias two best-selling social research and evaluation texts, and is
past president of the international action research association(ALARPM).
She convenes an action research programme at the Institute for Social
Research at Swinburne University of Technology, where she is an Adjunct
Professor. Address: ISR ARP, Mail P11, Swinburne University of
Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia. [email:
YWadsworth@swin.edu.au]