Systems Research and Behavioral Science

Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)

Published online inWiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
DOI:10.1002/sres.679

& Research Paper

Systemic Action Research for

Postgraduate Education in Agriculture
and Rural Development
Roger Packham1 and Nadarajah Sriskandarajah2*
1
University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW, Australia
2
Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark

This paper discusses the theory of Systemic Action Research and its use in postgraduate
research education, in the context of agriculture and rural development. The paper
discusses what systems thinking is and introduces the concepts of Systemic Development.
This is followed by an argument for a paradigm shift in how agriculture is viewed, and an
associated shift in education from teaching to learning. The core ideas of action research
are then described and illustrated by two case studies drawn from PhD research projects
supervised by the authors. Introducing the ideas of technical, practical, and emancipatory
action research, the paper further expands upon these concepts of action research,
illuminated by two additional PhD projects. Overall the paper demonstrates the
usefulness of Systemic Action Research as the basis for postgraduate research to deal
with real contextual issues in their true complexity, and in a holistic way. In this process,
genuine participation and the encouragement of diversity are seen as rights rather than as
means to greater research efficiency, thus giving power to people to act through the
generation of knowledge by critical reflection. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords systems thinking; systemic development; action research; postgraduate research
training; learning; participation; critical reflection

INTRODUCTION research works more on a ‘blueprint’ approach,

From an early stage of the development of the
Systems Agriculture programmes at Hawkes-
bury, action research was identified as a valuable
methodology for implementing change through
a systemic and a learning approach. Traditional
* Correspondence to: N. Sriskandarajah, Section for Learning and
Bioethics, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University,
Copenhagen, Denmark. E-mail: sri@kvl.dk
where the problem is identified in advance, and
the process to investigate the problem is then laid
out and followed. However, many of the com-
plex issues facing agriculture in Australia and
overseas are not readily dealt with in this way.
The problem often changes depending upon the
perspective used to look at the issue, and so it is
not so much cause–effect relationships that are
of prime interest, rather the improvement of

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

RESEARCH PAPER
situations as determined by those involved or
responsible for the situation.
In the development of the revised Hawkes-
bury programmes that commenced in 1978, this
difficulty first became apparent when working
with undergraduate students on ‘Off-Campus
experience’ programmes, which were a compul-
sory part of their studies. Students were located
on a farm of their interest in rural New South
Wales, and then had to describe, analyse and
propose improvements to that farm by viewing it
as if it were a system. The ‘problems’ emerged
through the process of investigation and dialo-
gue with the key stakeholders, and could range
from purely technical issues, to issues of family
farm transfer through inheritance, to environ-
mental or financial sustainability. It was not
possible to determine the problematic issues
prior to the students involving themselves with
the farming system in all its facets, and so the
methodology used needed to accommodate this
constraint; traditional scientific approaches were
not sufficient on their own.
At the postgraduate research level, Hawkesbury
(then Hawkesbury College of Advanced Educa-
tion) could not offer research degrees until it
became a part of the new University of Western
Sydney in 1989. Research degrees were then
immediately offered, but the challenge for staff
became how to provide appropriate research
training that reflected the ideas of Systems,
Learning, and Systemic Development that had
emerged from the experiences with the under-
graduate programme, as well as from staff
research and consulting projects in Australia
and overseas. Our experience with action
research was growing, and it was a methodology
that proved useful in research training aimed at
improving the practical situations in agriculture
and rural development. In this paper, we have
brought together the conceptual developments
which supported the change in agricultural
education fostered at Hawkesbury, and along
with it our own progress as field researchers and
supervisors. This discussion has been strength-
ened by reference to four specific examples of
PhD research projects drawn from among a
number of graduate students supervised by us
over the past decade and a half.
Copyright
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
120
Syst. Res.
This paper commences with a discussion of our
view of systems, and the concept of Systemic
Development. This is followed by a section arguing
the need for a paradigm shift in how agriculture is
viewed, resulting in a need for a parallel shift in
education from teaching to learning, as described
in the fourth section. Our views on action research
are then presented, followed by two of the case
studies: these were two of our earliest PhD
research projects conducted while these concepts
were unfolding, and being shaped by, and help-
ing to shape, these ideas. The sixth section
expands on the concept of action research,
drawing on the different modes of action research
as proposed by Grundy (1982). Two further case
studies, representing recently completed PhD
studies, are then outlined, illustrating how all
the ideas of this paper have been used in our
postgraduate educational programmes, leading
to very useful research outcomes. A conclusions
section completes the paper.
SYSTEMS AND SYSTEMIC DEVELOPMENT
Systemic thinking requires people to look at sets
of interacting activities. In the way we are talking
about them here, systems are constructs of the
mind—ways of thinking about real things, not
real things in themselves. It is necessary to draw
a boundary around those things that define the
area over which the system has relative control to
meet its purposes, delineating them from the
supra-system (called the system’s environment)
and being made up of those things that affect the
nominated system but not able to be controlled
by the system. The boundary is thus a critical
construct that is value laden, and is one of the
fundamental systemic concepts (Midgley, 2000).
People wishing to improve the system in some
way need to debate the purposes of the system,
what would be considered to be an improve-
ment, what constitutes the system and its
environment, and why the boundary has
included some things, but not others.
Systems are themselves made up of subsys-
tems in a recursive way, and the choice of what
hierarchical level (where hierarchy is used with
an enabling rather than oppressive meaning) to
Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)
Roger Packham and Nadarajah Sriskandarajah
Syst. Res.
select as one’s focus for a system of interest in
this continuous hierarchy is again open to
dialogue. It is not that there are definitive
answers to these questions, since the answers
are what the critical questioning community of
stakeholders decides that they are—a construc-
tivist philosophy, with an emphasis on the critical
questioning aspect. The key issue is the learning
that occurs through this dialogue. This learning
may result in progress being made simply
through trial and error, or through systematic
application of agricultural science, or productiv-
ity considerations, or indeed through systemic
methods being followed—what is important is
that the assumptions being held by all members
of the community of concern are drawn out and
understood—and the community of concern
must include (or at least have people speaking
on their behalf) all those affected by proposed
changes (improvements) to the system (Ulrich,
1983). This ensures that a participatory approach
is followed.
When this approach is applied to the improve-
ment of situations, such as those of agriculture,
the concept of Systemic Development emerges.
Here the system of focus is an organization of
some kind, be it a farm, a commercial company, a
community, a government or non-government
group, or the like. Systemic Development is a set
of ideas that promotes thinking and acting that
will ensure the continued development of the
organization (system) through participatory
learning, with concern concentrating on the three
systemic levels: the organization as the system-
in-focus; its subsystems, particularly the learning
subsystem; and the suprasystem, or immediate
system environment. Maintaining alignment
among all three of these levels, despite constant
change, is the goal; these ideas have been
elaborated by Bawden (1999). The (farming)
system’s managers have to continually learn
about the nature of the system’s environment
and plan strategies, allocate resources and
ensure operations are carried out that will enable
the organization and the farming system to
survive and flourish. This is best achieved
through experiential learning, coupled with the
individual learners’ own insights through what
is termed inspirational learning.
Copyright
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Systemic Action Research for Postgraduate Education
RESEARCH PAPER
A PARADIGM SHIFT FOR AGRICULTURE
Agriculture until recently has been dominated by
the paradigm of experimental science, also called
reductionist science. Such a science is based on
objectivity, seeking to predict through falsification,
thereby facilitating control, with such scientific
knowing locked into mathematics and numbers.
The achievements of science using this approach
are dazzling, and include the green revolution in
agriculture, but these very achievements often
blind us to what lies outside of this approach—
what is ignored—as they are beyond traditional
discipline-based science. Smith (1989) refers to
issues not addressed by science to include:
* intrinsic and normative values—science can tell
you what people like about issues (descrip-
tive), but not what they should like (normative);
* purposes—the attribution of an intentional
character to what happens in nature;
* global and existential meanings—what is the
meaning of it all? And what are the meanings
of the problems of life?
* quality—this is a subjective experience, so
nothing can convey the nature of a quality to
anyone who cannot perceive it directly.
To achieve this, Smith (1989) further suggests
that an innovative world-view needs to incorpo-
rate alternative and opposite guidelines that
move the current scientific world-view from a
focus on objectivity, prediction, control and num-
bers, to also include subjectivity, surprise, surrender
and words. Incorporating subjectivity would
recognize that it is as important to understand
oneself as it is to understand one’s world and its
parts. Incorporating surprise remembers that, in
comparison to what we do not know, what we do
know is very small. This is illustrated by a story
Smith (1989) tells of the director of a medical
research team, who noted that after 30 years of
research, when he cut his face shaving, he still
had no idea about what made it heal. The
incorporation of surrender would give recogni-
tion to the fact that one does not enter a
friendship or marriage with an intention to
control; surrender is to be able to give oneself
to a person, a cause or the call of conscience.
Finally there is the inclusion of words, where
Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)
121
RESEARCH PAPER
words are symbols, while numbers are only
signs: signs are fine for ascending logic, but the
ambiguity of words is required for meaning to
emerge, as in language, which is biological in
that humans are programmed to learn it.
An approach that incorporates the above
would represent a paradigm shift in the world-
view of agriculture, and how research, extension
and education activities are carried out towards
learning about and improving agriculture over
decades to come. It is very much a shift to a
participatory and holistic (systemic) world-view,
governed by a value of the common good, as
described by Bawden (1999). Other world-views
he describes to make this point are illustrated in
Figure 1.
An example of how world-views will influence
agriculture can be drawn from the way risks are
judged in the field of trans-boundary transfer
(between widely different organisms), handling,
and use of organisms modified by genetic
engineering. There is a debate between using
the Precautionary Principle (supported by devel-
oping countries and European industrialized
countries) instead of the Principle of Familiarity
Figure 1. Four World-views (after Bawden, 1999)
Copyright
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
122
Syst. Res.
(the framework supported by the USA, Australia
and Japan). The Principle of Familiarity assigns
science the role of providing risk assessment on
the intended novel traits of a given genetically
modified organism; however, as far as unintended
changes of such organisms are concerned, science
has to provide arguments to support the judge-
ment that there are significant differences in
the composition of genetically engineered and
non-engineered organisms before further risk
assessment has to occur. The Precautionary
Principle brings science and ethics together,
stating that when an activity raises threats of
harm to the environment or human health
precautionary measures should be taken even if
some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully
established scientifically. The Principle of Famil-
iarity comes from a reductionist science world-
view and a utilitarian value base. The precau-
tionary principle is not at odds with reductionist
science—in fact it supports it—but its world-
view comes from a more communal approach,
valuing the common good at the expense of
private gain, and uses a rights-based approach to
values.
Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)
Roger Packham and Nadarajah Sriskandarajah
Syst. Res.
LEARNING AND RESEARCH
Research has a clear focus on learning, and an
innovation required to improve postgraduate
agricultural research is a move away from a
focus on teaching about agricultural research and
how to improve it, to learning with stakeholders
about agricultural issues and how to improve
them. By this we mean a move away from a belief
that knowledge can be ‘injected’ into others in
some way, and that knowledge by itself can lead
to understanding and thus improvement. There
is a need to recognize and acknowledge the vital
learning link between finding out about agricul-
tural issues and taking action to improve these
issues in some way, and that agricultural educa-
tion and research should contain elements of
both of these. The finding out and taking action
need to go on in the actual (experiential) research
context that is giving rise to the issues of concern,
and not be limited to simulations and experi-
ments within the confines of the research
laboratory or research station. It is from this
basis that other issues of a more discipline-of-
science kind can be addressed. The actual
contexts are always complex and messy to deal
with (not neat like the adapted questions that
experimental science addresses), and it is here
that participatory and systemic ideas come to the
fore.
Experiential learning has been described else-
where (e.g. Kolb, 1984; Packham et al., 1989;
Bawden, 1995), but the basis of such learning is
that it is made up of four sets of questions: What
is there? What does it mean? What might be done?
How will we do it, and how will we know when we
have done it? Thus while incorporating theory
and practice, experiential learning, like action
research, is more than either or both of these. In
addition, it is our view that the learner needs first
to address these experiential learning questions
about the issue(s) of concern; but secondly the
learner needs also to examine through critical
reflection the methods chosen to answer these
initial questions; and then thirdly to further
critically reflect on the assumptions held in
deciding the selection of the methods used to
answer those questions—the assumptions that
help to make meaning and that give rise to the
Copyright
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Systemic Action Research for Postgraduate Education
RESEARCH PAPER
values we hold, underpinned by different
epistemologies and world-views (Bawden and
Packham, 1993). Thus there are three levels of
learning going on in experiential learning: learn-
ing, meta-learning and epistemic learning.
This linking of theory with practice with values
in a recursive way is termed praxis. The key to this
educative innovation is that praxis is grounded in
real contextual issues as the main focus and thrust
of learning. As a result, the role of the researcher
or educator becomes much more that of a
facilitator of learning, rather than simply an expert
disseminator of knowledge. This requires differ-
ent inter-personal and communication skills,
from the researcher, the educator and the stake-
holders. Again such issues have been described
elsewhere (e.g. Packham et al., 1989; Bawden,
1992; Bawden and Packham, 1993).
Others support these ideas, particularly in the
context of developing a more sustainable agri-
culture. Pretty (1998) believes that the central
concept of sustainable agriculture is that it must
enshrine new ways of learning about the world,
and that such learning must not be confused with
teaching. He notes that teaching implies a
transfer of knowledge and understanding from
someone who knows to someone who does not
know. Ison (1990) also pointed out that in
situations where teaching does not include a
focus on self-development to enhance the ability
to learn teaching actually threatens sustainable
agriculture. Both authors note that this has
profound implications for agricultural develop-
ment, and thus for agricultural research. The
focus has to be less on what we learn and more on
how we learn and with whom—with a much
greater focus on participation. It should be
stressed that participatory approaches are also
learning approaches. Six features of learning
approaches to participatory development have
been suggested by Pretty (1998) to be as follows:
* a defined methodology (principles for action)
and a systemic learning process;
* multiple perspectives—a central objective to
seek diversity, rather than characterize com-
plexity in terms of average values;
* group learning processes that involve the
recognition that the complexity of the world
Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)
123
RESEARCH PAPER
will only be revealed through group inquiry
and interaction;
* context specific;
* facilitating experts and stakeholders—the role
of the ‘expert’ is best thought of as helping
people in their local situation to carry out their
own study and to achieve something;
* leading to sustained action—the learning
process leads to debate about change, and
debate changes the perceptions of the actors
and their readiness to contemplate action
(praxis).
These will shortly be seen to be features of some
modes of action research as well. Pretty (1998) has
noted that two overlapping schools of thought
and practice have evolved, one viewing partici-
pation as a means to increase efficiency—what
we would say is a utilitarian values approach,
with the central notion that when people are
involved they are more likely to agree with and
support a new development or service. The other
view sees participation as a fundamental right—
what we would call a deontological values
approach, in which the main aim is to initiate
mobilization for collective action, empowerment
and institution building. These ideas again reflect
different world-views, and will be seen to
differentiate modes of action research.
ACTION RESEARCH
Action research is a research paradigm explicitly
concerned with the improvement of situations
through the taking of informed action and the
development of relevant theory, which is then
used to guide further action (Greenwood and
Levin, 1998; Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000). The
approach has its origins in social and educational
research, but has also been advocated in a wide
variety of domains, including agricultural devel-
opment, participatory development, community
development, environmental management and
organizational development (Dash, 1999). Action
research is characterized by improvement and
involvement, but it is the idea of strategic action,
which is deliberate and considered action under-
taken to bring about change, that distinguishes
action involved in action research from other
Copyright
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
124
Syst. Res.
forms of action which may be designed to assess
the past or to find out about the present (Grundy,
1982). Grundy (1982) goes on to propose that an
action research project takes as its subject matter
a social practice, regarding it as a strategic action
susceptible to improvement; the project proceeds
through a spiral of cycles of planning, acting,
observing and reflecting, each of these being self-
critically implemented in an integrated way; and
finally that the project involves those responsible
for the practice in each of the moments of the
activity, widening participation in the project
gradually to include others affected by the
practice and maintaining collaborative control
of the process. The intention of action research is
to give people the power to act in order to bring
about change (action) by generating knowledge
through rational reflection on personal experi-
ence (research), so above all it is a learning
process. The links action research has with
systemic development, as outlined above, are
thus clear.
These views are supported by Flood (2001),
who points out that complexity emerges in our
lives over which the human mind is no master.
He goes on to state that:
In fact the human mind is both the creator and
the subject of complexity, not an externally
appointed master over it and all its parts. That
is why it makes no sense to separate action
from research in our minds or in our prac-
tice—so there is a need in everday living and
at work to maintain a balance between
mystery and mastery . . . It is through systemic
thinking that we know of the unknowable.
Where these two arcs of reasoning converge,
we witness the incredible genesis of a con-
ceptual universe that opens up otherwise
unimaginable ways in which people may live
their lives in a more meaningful and fulfilling
manner.
Action research begins when the ‘research-
er(s)’ join a group of people who are concerned
about improving their situation. Bawden (1991)
suggests that it continues as it achieves five
outcomes that are placed in the context of, and
are subjected to, critique from public knowledge;
it is this latter point, emphasized by the fifth
Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)
Roger Packham and Nadarajah Sriskandarajah
Syst. Res.
outcome, that separates action research from
action learning, such as described by Pedler
(1997). The five outcomes are as follows:
* the situation of concern is improved;
* the understanding (learning) by the practi-
tioners in the situation is improved;
* the practice of the researcher(s) is improved;
* the understanding of the research practice by
the practitioner(s) is improved;
* the research process and outcomes contribute
to social knowledge, and the learning out-
comes can be shared to other similar situa-
tions.
TWO CASE STUDIES
When one of our early PhD candidates came
from the Philippines on a scholarship pro-
gramme, her stated interest area for a research
topic was nutrition of goats, and she wanted to
conduct trials on the nutritive value of agricul-
tural by-products as feed for goats. As her main
research supervisors, we asked her to discuss
why she wanted to do this. Her response was
that she wanted to improve goat production in
her rural area just outside Naga City in Luzon
Island, to provide a source of food in case the rice
crop failed due to the common occurrence of
cyclone damage. Instead of accepting the
assumptions associated with this proposal at
face value, we adopted an action research
approach, and asked her to check this proposed
action with the local farmers. While goat raising
was a traditional activity in the region, it ensued
that it had gone out of favour due to their easy
theft by local insurgents living in the nearby hills
(the work was started during the Marcos era). So
the investigation changed to one considering
how other forms of animal production (still
within her interest and competence area) could
assist in ensuring food security. Pigs and poultry
production became a focus following further
research activities, but it soon became evident
that the problem was not a lack of technical
information on feeds and feeding as presumed
by the PhD candidate, but rather the provision of
a consistent supply of good-quality feedstuffs
and access to finance and markets at relevant
Copyright
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Systemic Action Research for Postgraduate Education
RESEARCH PAPER
times, as revealed by the stakeholders through
the iterative action researching process. The
situation was improved by the formation of a
local cooperative by the village people, which
only eventuated after leadership training and
other capacity-building activities facilitated by
the PhD candidate (Callo, 1997; Callo and
Packham, 1999).
Thus the project moved from its purely
technological, isolated focus to an embedded,
socio-technological one. It was the systemic,
participatory action research process adopted in
the study that led to improvements emerging,
along with the ongoing change in the issues of
concern as the project unfolded. It could not be
planned and implemented in the traditional way
used in agricultural science research. The action
research methodology, underpinned with Soft
Systems Methodology (Checkland and Scholes,
1990), enabled deliberate strategic action to
emerge that led to recognizable improvements
by the local stakeholders, but also to more
general improvements—these occurred through
the learning of both the PhD candidate and her
supervisors. The PhD candidate has gone on
after graduation to teach in a university and to
foster projects that improve other local situations
using systemic action research. The supervisory
panel was able to use the learning from this
project to provide enhanced education and
research in other projects of their own, and with
other research students.
When a subsequent PhD candidate arrived
from Ghana with an initial desire to work on the
nutrition of goats and sheep, he too was given the
opportunity to formulate his PhD research
project so that it would fit his interests and
enthusiasm at the same time as it addressed a
relevant set of issues to do with his work
environment back home. Having divulged his
role as an extension officer within the Ministry of
Agriculture, he expressed an interest to inquire
into the problematique of ‘non-adoption of
technology’ by Ghanian farmers. In what he
described later in his thesis as a ‘cognitive
journey’, he explored literature on the ontologi-
cal and epistemological questions regarding
knowledge management in the agricultural
research extension systems around the world,
Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)
125
RESEARCH PAPER
and began questioning the validity and ethical
defensibility of his initial idea for the project. He
talked about his discomfort in acting as an
outside inquirer in his own community, posing
and answering questions to capture the realities
of people on whom research was to be done. He
argued that the low adoption rates of technology
could not be studied in isolation of the inter-
pretations that stakeholders give to the inter-
relationships within the social system.
Therefore, instead of the use of objective
analysis by a detached researcher wanting to
explore low adoption rates, he chose what he
labelled as a participatory learning approach
based on the logic of action research, experiential
learning and critical learning systems as ‘an
appropriate and legitimate way of improving
farming and agricultural development work in
the chosen district of Ghana 1 (Amezah, 1998;
Amezah et al., 1998). Farmers, researchers and
extension workers, as major stakeholders
involved in agricultural production in the study
area, were engaged in developing their own
meanings about and understanding of their own
problems, opportunities and practices; and in
generating knowledge to enable them to take
informed actions to improve their situations. The
‘researching facilitator’ saw his roles as initiator
of the idea and facilitator of learning for the
participants, as well as a catalyst, resource
person and the student of participatory learning.
In relation to the position he was in at the
commencement of the study, he also acknowl-
edged the reorientation of the roles and respon-
sibilities of the researcher and the researched,
and the transformation that occurred in them
through active engagement in the learning
process.
MODES OF ACTION RESEARCH
Within action research, Grundy (1982) has
identified different modes or ‘types’ of action
research, based on the different philosophical
stances that underpin them (epistemic learning
as referred to above), and that relate to the source
and scope of the guiding idea of the project and
the disposition that determines the type of
Copyright
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
126
Syst. Res.
strategic action. One mode may predominate in
a project, or two or more modes may be phases of
a project’s life, with a project beginning in one
mode and then another mode predominating
during its progress.
The first mode of action research is technical
action research. The aim here is to achieve more
efficient or effective practice, but the ‘idea’ by
which the outcome will be measured pre-exists
in the mind of the facilitator/researcher. This
mode is product centred, so action is designed to
produce, make or create something. In this mode,
the facilitator’s task is to inspire, enthuse others
and to obtain personal commitment from parti-
cipants; it is desirable, but not necessary, for
participants to be personally committed to the
motivating ‘idea’.
The second mode is practical action research:
while the technical mode seeks to improve
practice through the practical skills of the
participants, in the practical mode the action
research seeks to improve practice through the
application of the personal wisdom of the partici-
pants. This does not mean just an intuitive sense
of what is good, but rather a true and reasoned
disposition, which involves reflection upon
knowledge, experience and intuition in order to
perceive what is truly in the interests of the
stakeholders involved. To avoid self-deception,
this reflection is best done in a group with the aid
of a facilitator who assists the process of self-
reflection and reasoning. In this mode, a group of
similarly motivated colleagues can generate the
power to act either by providing a wider
spectrum of ideas, or by giving an individual
the support needed to act. There are, however,
areas where institutional restrictions impinge
upon practice, so that the individual or group,
while operating prudently and professionally to
initiate change, is powerless to do so because of
the strength of the organizational or adminis-
trative structure within which they are working.
Here the emancipation of the participants from the
dictates of compulsions of tradition, precedent,
habit, coercion and self-deception becomes the
focus.
This is the third mode: emancipatory action
research. Here the development of action-oriented
critique is required, which has the three phases
Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)
Roger Packham and Nadarajah Sriskandarajah
Syst. Res.
of theory, enlightenment and action. The disposi-
tion that motivates all stages of emancipatory
action research is critical intent, but this is
particularly important for the first stage, the
development of the theoretical perspectives that
will inform a project. There is a dynamic
relationship between theory and practice here,
with both changing and expanding during the
progress of the project, with theory informing,
but not legitimating, practice. The theory will be
fostered by the application of personal judge-
ments through reflection on it. A thorough
theoretical foundation is not required before a
person can participate in this mode of action
research, but the group does need access at some
stage to theory that has been subjected to the full
rigour of scientific discourse, which can in turn
be subjected to critical scrutiny by the group.
Here the facilitator/researcher plays a key role,
as they often have a greater theoretical back-
ground and more time for contemplation than
other members of the group. The facilitator also
has the task of ensuring unimpeded group
communication, which allows understanding to
emerge and forms the basis from which enlight-
enment will flow (Habermas, 1974). In this, the
facilitator must guard against manipulating the
group process, particularly by ensuring that
truth and power do not reside in the facilitator
alone through them adopting an expert role: the
reflective discussions of the group should
involve interaction between a variety of ideas
from group members in relation to a particular
event or situation. Generally, in emancipatory
action research, the facilitator also accepts a
greater share of responsibility for the practical
organization of the group deliberative processes
(agendas, information dissemination etc.).
Unlike practical action research, group delibera-
tions will encompass the social milieu in which
an event of interest occurs, and will seek
enlightenment regarding that as well as the
event itself. Because enlightenment has its focus
upon the past, the group also needs to deliberate
on planning action that is future oriented. While
the facilitator can assist in the organization of
enlightenment, the responsibility for action rests
solely with the actors, and the action may be both
practical and political.
Copyright
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Systemic Action Research for Postgraduate Education
RESEARCH PAPER
It is not in the methodology that these three
modes of action research differ, but in the
underlying assumptions and world-views of
the participants (epistemic learning). The differ-
ences in the relationship between the partici-
pants and the source and scope of the guiding
idea can be traced to questions of power
(Grundy, 1982). In the technical mode, it is the
idea that is the source of power for action, and
since the idea resides with the facilitator it is they
who control the project. In the practical mode,
power is shared between a group of equal
participants, but the emphasis is upon individual
power for action. Finally in the emancipatory
mode, power resides wholly with the group, not
with the facilitator or the individuals within the
group. It is this change in power that can cause a
shift from one mode to another.
TWO FURTHER CASE STUDIES
The Profitable Pastures Project (PPP) was an
industry-funded project that aimed to improve
milk production from pasture-based farming
systems in major dairying regions within sub-
tropical New South Wales, Australia. An action
research methodology was employed to facilitate
local level commitment and learning. Six regio-
nal dairy groups were involved, each of which
was entitled to biannual funding of $AUS 5000
for a minimum of 3 years to support farmer-
driven investigation and learning activities. The
project coordinator was also enrolled in a PhD
study as part of the project.
An issue identified early in the research was
that, given the desire of the funding body to learn
about improved ways of researching dairy
pasture production, how far could the project
drift from its focus on pastures—the idea as the
source of power in Grundy’s terminology as
used above—if the groups decided that this was
not the main issue? A firm adherence would
mean adopting only a technical stance, while a
practical or emancipatory approach might lead
to improved lifestyle and financial returns to the
farmers (Jennings and Packham, 2000). As the
work progressed, the issue of emancipating
the farmers to take control of the decisions for
Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)
127
RESEARCH PAPER
what research occurred became increasingly
important. Overall, through facilitation PPP
significantly increased the role that ordinary
farmers played within their industry’s processes
of research, development and extension: PPP-
supported projects enabled farmers to gain a
first-hand understanding of a wide range of
technical issues. In doing so, PPP farmers proved
their capacity to conduct professional learning
and research activities, and have done so within
a project that has increased its industry profile
and established a sound reputation for meeting
farmer needs within the NSW dairy industry.
However, these technical gains could not have
been made without the accompanying practical
and emancipatory outcomes of the action
research process. It is suggested that the techni-
cal action research was embedded in the prac-
tical, and the practical embedded in the
emancipatory in a systemic way. Without the
focus on all three levels, the outcomes would not
have been as rich or as beneficial. The project has
also had the effect of changing the views of the
research funding body, as they can now see that
it is possible to include farmers in the research
process in a meaningful and productive way—a
further emancipatory outcome.
While the above example occurred in a devel-
oped country context, the same embedded
features of technical, practical and emancipatory
action research could be seen in the early two case
studies from the Philippines and from Ghana,
and also in a fourth example with another PhD
student from South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Here,
smallholder farmers improved the productivity
of their cattle-keeping enterprises through a
process of systemic Participatory Action Research
(PAR). PAR first identified the problems and
needs of the farmers, and then developed
strategies with them to meet these needs. Fodder
security throughout the year was found to be the
major constraint to cattle production. This was
improved by planting fodder trees as fences
around the boundaries of homesteads and fields,
as well as Napier grass in waste ground adjacent
to existing crops, in unused land within the
homestead, and under existing Kapuk trees.
The production of these fodder sources repre-
sented new technologies for these villagers
Copyright
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
128
Syst. Res.
(technical action research), but their introduction
was adapted to local issues and needs (practical
action research). While local extension services
had aimed at improving livestock production
through transfer of technology methods, these
had not made any impact. The results of the PAR
have been threefold: the farmers moved from a
system of tethering animals in fields to thrive on
weeds, to a cut-and-carry stall-feeding system
utilizing more nutritious fodder sources; sec-
ondly, they now have two or three cows, where
they only had one before; finally, growth rates of
young cattle have improved from 0.3 kg/day to
0.5 kg/day (Habibie, 2003; Habibie et al., 2002a,
2002b). These encouraging results would not
have been achieved with traditional transfer-of-
technology extension methods, as the technical
outcomes would not have occurred without the
practical and emancipatory modes of action
research also being effective. As a result, this
work is also affecting the way institutions are
working with farmers in the area to improve
their livelihoods. In all four projects outlined
here, a challenge for the associated wider
institutions has been to consider changes to the
way they operate, and to examine the beliefs and
values that they hold, all of which are steps far
beyond what was conceived as achievable in
traditional PhD research projects in agriculture.
These four and others of our students who
have undertaken postgraduate research in rural
and agricultural situations utilizing a systemic
action research approach fall into two types:
those who are part of long-term funded projects
and are able to take some of their experiences as
thesis research, and others who step into a
situation primarily to conduct an action research
study for their thesis and step out of it at the end
of the study. The latter type tends to be the
majority and their interventions, while ade-
quately serving the needs of a thesis and
contributing to their own competence develop-
ment, are subject to the criticism, by those
involved in the situation for the longer term, of
being less effective because of their limitations in
duration, area of coverage and scope. When
these interventions involve farming commu-
nities that are disposed to looking at the
intervener as an ‘expert’ bringing help and
Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)
Roger Packham and Nadarajah Sriskandarajah
Syst. Res.
advice, rather than as a willing co-learner and
facilitator, then the task of bringing about
significant transformations becomes all the more
challenging and demanding of time. Here it is
difficult to shift the focus of power from the
initial idea brought by the researcher to a group
concerned about issues in their local situation
(technical action research), to one owned by that
group as well as the researcher (practical action
research), or indeed modified by the group to
becoming a different and more relevant idea for
themselves (emancipatory action research).
Research projects that are extensive in time and
space, and which allow for more thorough
observations, reflection and action, are emer-
ging in Australian agriculture (Jennings and
Packham, 2000) and these are bound to add to
our experience even more. However, care needs
to be taken to ensure that postgraduate students
can complete their theses within required time-
frames, and that the research elements of a PhD or
research master degree are fulfilled.
CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a series of concepts for
use in postgraduate education, which together
constitute systemic action research. Their use is
illustrated through four case studies. Systems are
presented here as a way of thinking about real
things (systemic), rather than being real things in
themselves (systems). Systemic action research
also provides a framework for critical question-
ing that includes all relevant stakeholders,
including those who do not have the means to
speak for themselves. It represents a move
beyond experimental science, to include intrinsic
and normative values, purposes, quality, and
global and existential meanings. It is an approach
that brings science and ethics together in an overt
and critical way. This supports the views of
Flood (2001) when he notes that systemic think-
ing is not an approach to action research, but a
grounding for action research. That is, action
research carried out with a systemic perspective
in mind promises to construct meaning that
resonates strongly with our experiences within a
profoundly systemic world.
Copyright
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Systemic Action Research for Postgraduate Education
RESEARCH PAPER
This paper reinforces the view that research is
also learning, and so postgraduate education
needs to have a learning focus, rather than a
teaching one. Experiential learning is introduced
as a model for the learning process, including the
three learning levels of cognitive, meta- and
epistemic learning. This model is very compa-
tible with action research, since experiential
learning also needs to occur in partnership with
relevant stakeholders if improvements are to be
sustainable.
Systemic action research issues are drawn
from real contexts and are dealt with in their
true complexity, and as such they are messy, not
neat like the adapted questions extracted from
such contexts to meet the demands of experi-
mental science. The research process needs to be
participatory in the true sense of this term, and to
encourage diversity. Participation and diversity
are seen here as rights rather than just means to
greater research efficiency. Systemic action
research can be evaluated using five criteria. It
also gives power to people to act through
generating knowledge by critical reflection. The
three modes of action research—technical, prac-
tical and emancipatory—differ in their aims, in
the underlying assumptions of the participants
(epistemic learning), and in the source and
location of power.
These ideas have all been brought to life by
four case studies of PhD research projects. These
projects show how we, as well as the postgrad-
uate students, learnt from what was done, and
that this kind of postgraduate education also
results in improvements to the contexts the
students worked in, as well as the production
of a thesis and thereby new knowledge. All the
researchers became a part of the contexts they
worked in; they did not act only as objective
observers of these contexts—a real participatory
learning approach to systemic action research.
REFERENCES
Amezah A. 1998. A participative learning approach to
agricultural development: a Ghanian case. PhD
thesis, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury,
Australia.
Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)
129
RESEARCH PAPER
Amezah A, Sriskandarajah N, Bawden RJ. 1998. Parti-
cipatory learning: agricultural specialists learn with
farmers in Ghana. In Proceedings of the 15th Interna-
tional Symposium of the Association of Farming Systems
Research and Extension, Vol. 2. Pretoria; 960–965.
Bawden RJ. 1991. Towards action researching systems.
In Action Research for Change and Development, Zuber-
Skerritt O (ed.). Griffith University Press: Brisbane;
21–51.
Bawden RJ. 1992. Systems approaches to agricultural
development: the Hawkesbury experience. Agricul-
tural Systems 40: 153–176.
Bawden RJ. 1995. Systemic development: a learning
approach to change. Occasional Paper #1, Centre for
Systemic Development, University of Western
Sydney, Richmond, NSW, Australia.
Bawden RJ. 1999. The community challenge: the learn-
ing response. New Horizons in Education 99: 40–59.
Bawden RJ, Packham RG. 1993. Systems Praxis in the
Education of the Agricultural Practitioner. Systems
Practice 6: 151–162.
Callo V. 1997. Towards community development:
exploring possibilities with the rural poor in the
Philippines through participatory systemic action
research. PhD thesis, University of Western Sydney–
Hawkesbury, Australia.
Callo V, Packham RG. 1999. The use of Soft Systems
Methodology in emancipatory development. Sys-
tems Research and Behavioural Science 16: 311–319.
Checkland P, Scholes J. 1990. Soft Systems Methodology
in Action. Wiley: Chichester.
Dash DP. 1999. Current debates in action research.
Systemic Practice and Action Research 12: 457–492.
Flood RL. 2001. The relationship of ‘systems thinking’
to action research. In Handbook of Action Research;
Participative Inquiry and Practice, Reason P, Bradbury
H (eds). Sage: London; 133–144.
Greenwood DJ, Levin M. 1998. Introduction to Action
Research: Social Research for Change. Sage: London.
Grundy S. 1982. Three modes of action research.
Curriculum Perspectives 2: 23–34.
Habermas J. 1974. Theory and Practice, Viertel J (ed.).
Heinemann: London.
Habibie H. 2003. Participatory action research to
improve the livelihood of rural people through
livestock production in South Sulawesi, Indonesia.
PhD thesis, University of Western Sydney, Australia.
Copyright
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
130
Syst. Res.
Habibie H, Sriskandarajah N, Packham RG. 2002a.
Making best use of limited resources: using partici-
pative action research to achieve fodder security
with smallholder livestock farmers in Indonesia. In
Proceedings of the European Branch of the International
Farming Systems Association (IFSA), Florence, Italy;
589–600.
Habibie H, Sriskandarajah N, Packham RG. 2002b.
Participative action research (PAR) for rural com-
munity development in South Sulawesi, Indonesia.
In Systems Theory and Practice in the Knowledge Age.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum: New York; 203–210.
Ison RL. 1990. Teaching Threatens Sustainable Agricul-
ture. Gatekeeper Series SA 21. IIED: London.
Jennings J, Packham RG. 2000. Action research and issues
of participation in the NSW Dairy Industry. Paper
presented at International Conference on Action Learn-
ing, Action Research and Process Management, Bendigo,
Victoria. http://www.ballarat.edu.au/ard/research/
alarpm/docs/Job09.doc [24 February 2005].
Kemmis S, McTaggart R. 2000. Participatory action
research. In Handbook for Qualitative Research, Denzin
NK, Lincoln YS (eds). Sage: London; 567–605.
Kolb D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the
Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Midgley G. 2000. Systemic Intervention: Philosophy,
Methodology, and Practice. Kluwer Academic/
Plenum: New York.
Packham RG, Roberts R, Bawden RJ. 1989. Our faculty
goes experiential. In Making Sense of Experiential
Learning, Weil S, McGill I (eds). Open University
Press: Milton Keynes; 129–149.
Pedler M. 1997. Interpreting action learning. In
Management Learning: Integrating Perspectives in
Theory and Practice, Burgoyne J, Reynolds M (eds).
Sage: London; 248–264.
Pretty J. 1998. Participatory learning for integrated farm-
ing. In Proceedings of the Internet Conference on
Integrated Bio-Systems, Eng-Leong Foo, Senta TD
(eds). Institute of Advanced Studies, UN University.
http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/jules/
paper.htm_ [24 February 2005].
Smith H. 1989. Beyond the Post-Modern Mind (2nd edn).
Quest Books: Wheaton, IL.
Ulrich W. 1983. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning.
Haupt: Bern.
Syst. Res. 22,119^130 (2005)
Roger Packham and Nadarajah Sriskandarajah