In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • The Potential of Deweyan-Inspired Action Research
  • Jody L. Stark (bio)

Introduction

This article examines the potential of Action Research informed by Dewey’s pragmatism as a research methodology in the social sciences. Not only a philosophical orientation, pragmatism is also a powerful mode of inquiry. When combined with the democratic research approach of Action Research, Deweyan pragmatism has great potential to shed light on educational and other social science questions, forward social change, and enact Dewey’s vision of radical social democracy. Although Dewey’s philosophy, one could argue, has never been mainstream in education and in research, the combination of Deweyan philosophy and Action Research has the potential to revive interest in Dewey’s work and serve as an example of Deweyan inquiry.

This article is divided into three sections. In the first, I will provide an overview of both Action Research and pragmatism as a mode of inquiry, while in the second, I will outline a theoretical framework for Deweyan-inspired Action Research based on the scholarship of pragmatic action researchers Greenwood and Levin (2007), as well as Dewey. In the third section, I will address criticisms leveled at both Action Research and Dewey, and suggest that the combination of these two discourses/practices has great potential as transformative social science research.

Action Research and Pragmatism as a Mode of Inquiry

Action Research: An Overview

Although Action Research (AR) generally traces its roots to the work of German-American social psychologist Kurt Lewin (Adelman, 1993; Elliott, 1991), its development has not been a linear one. Greenwood and Levin (2007) describe several “strands” in AR history that have contributed to the “diversity of activities” of AR practice (p. 13). First, and significant in Lewin’s story, is the Industrial Democracy Movement, an attempt to involve factory workers in participatory democracy to solve problems in their work environments. Also related to the principles of democracy, Greenwood and Levin’s second strand encompasses a variety of forms of [End Page 87] Action Research that all have for their aim equality, justice, and the end of oppression. Paulo Freire’s work is important to this movement. The last thread is that of social science researchers concerned with finding a way to conduct human research that gives dignity and a voice to all participants. Greenwood and Levin call this tradition “Human Inquiry and Cooperative Inquiry” and cite Peter Reason, Hilary Bradbury, John Heron, and William R. Torbert as having been instrumental in the development of this strand.

These differing conceptions of AR have been informed by a variety of different philosophical discourses, including critical theory (Marx, Habermas), existentialism (Greene), hermeneutics (Gadamer), pragmatism (Dewey), and psychoanalytical theory (Freud). Noffke (2009) suggests that differing schools of Action Research foreground different dimensions, that is, either the professional, personal or political, although all Action Research is, by definition, political. As Carson writes, “Action research is rooted in a belief in the transformative possibilities of personal and collective action” (2009, p. 347). This is the action in Action Research. It is conceived of as a mechanism of social change grounded in principles of democracy (Greenwood and Levin, 2007). Action Research, then, is more than just a research methodology. It is an instrument of change to bring about transformation in people’s lives wrought by the people themselves.

Pragmatism as Mode of Inquiry

Pragmatism has its roots in early 20th century America, most notably in the work of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1920), and John Dewey (1859–1952) in a time when the ideas of Darwin and scientific inquiry were very much in vogue. Noteworthy is the fact that Action Research grounded in Industrial Democracy hails from the same historical moment and place as pragmatism. In fact, Adelman (1993) suggests that Lewin (1890–1947) was a “scientific pragmatist” (p. 12) and traces Lewin’s Action Research methodology back to Peirce.

Although philosopher F. S. C. Schiller reportedly quipped that there are “as many pragmatisms as there are pragmatists” (Thayer, 1981, p. 5), in spite of the many differences among individual philosophers, all pragmatists are united in the belief that human existence inherently involves the active practice of making...

pdf