Technical Action Research

Technical action research (commonly referred to as TAR) is one of many suggested types or modes of action research. The primary purpose of TAR is improving the outcomes of a practice or an intervention. The focus of the inquiry process is typically determined by parties external to those directly involved in the practice, with action research techniques used by an external researcher or facilitator to identify or improve practices which meet predetermined ends. Examples include the testing of external findings in practice, the exploration of practice or organizational methods to achieve a particular desired outcome and the improvement of existing ways of doing things. This entry discusses the history and characteristics of TAR, together with consideration of the contexts of its application.

The interest in distinguishing TAR can be located in the critique of positivist-scientific enquiry. The term was first used by the Australian writers Wilfred Carr and Stephen Kemmis in the mid-1980s in the context of wanting to distinguish a critical and emancipatory form of action research for education from what was seen as a more practical orientation of British action research used with respect to organizational development. Using Jürgen Habermas’ theory of knowledge-constitutive interests as a springboard, they distinguished technical action research from practical action research guided by an interest in educating or enlightening practitioners and from critical action research guided by an interest in emancipating people and groups from irrationality, injustice and harm or suffering.

To Theodor Schatzki, these three kinds of action research differ in their ‘teleoaffective structure’ in that the overall structure and purpose of each, or teleos, involves different kinds of emotional, or affective, investment.

Foundational to how TAR has been defined by critical educationalists is the view that TAR reflects a technical approach to reasoning where the means to an end are seen as the focus of change or improvement rather than the ends or the broader political, historical and sociocultural contexts in which a practice is located. This critique considers that technical approaches to action research are not truly owned by or empowering for participant practitioners and are not transformative or critical. In other words, TAR is underpinned by certain values and assumptions and not by others. The concession is that it may provide a springboard for practitioner-initiated inquiry and, in some contexts, lead to more critical and participatory forms of action research.

TAR as a discernible form of action research has a longer history than the term itself. The pragmatic quality of TAR is evident in the contributions of John Dewey. Kurt Lewin’s field experiments have been cited by writers such as Bjørn Gustavsen and Ian Hughes as reflecting the TAR characteristic of the researcher’s role being clearly distinguished from that of participants. Others, such as Davydd Greenwood, see action research as undertaken by action research experts who work with local stakeholders. A great deal of action research has been undertaken where the inquiry has been initiated by government, management or researchers, including those undertaking postgraduate projects.

Writers such as Michel Thiollent suggest that action research and participatory research have different lineages which have converged to some extent since the 1980s. Distinguishing technical from participatory forms of action research occurred at the same time.

...