I used to think I had a fairly clear understanding of what participation meant in action research.

For me, participation meant involving people in the research process. Participants might help design the research, answer questions, take part in interviews or focus groups, complete surveys, or contribute information about their experiences. If people were involved in the research, I considered that participation.

The more I have read about action research and participatory research, however, the less straightforward this idea has become.

I have recently started thinking about a distinction that I had not really considered before: participating in research procedures is not necessarily the same as participating in the direction of the research.

This distinction has changed how I think about action research.

From Research to Action

One of the starting points for this change in my thinking has been the work of Kurt Lewin. His 1946 article, Action Research and Minority Problems, helped me understand some of the early foundations of action research. Lewin was interested in connecting research with practical social problems rather than treating research as something completely separate from practice.

He described action research as research concerning different forms of social action and as research that leads to social action (Lewin, 1946). This helped me see that the word action in action research is not simply an additional step added to the end of a research project.

Action is connected to the purpose of the research itself.

Lewin (1946) also described action research as a cycle involving planning, action, and fact-finding about the results of that action. This cyclical process helped me understand why action research can be different from a more traditional linear research process. Instead of identifying a question, collecting data, analyzing it, and stopping, the findings from one stage can influence what happens next.

Something is done, its consequences are examined, and what is learned can contribute to another round of planning and action.

This made me start thinking about where participation fits within that cycle.

If the research moves from planning to action and then to evaluation, where does participation begin and where does it end?

Why Being an Insider Is Not Enough

This question also made me reconsider my original understanding of action research.

Initially, I associated action research with being part of the setting being studied. I thought that if a researcher was an insider and involved participants in the research, this was enough to characterize the work as action research.

I now understand that this is too narrow.

I now realize that studying my own workplace or professional practice would not, by itself, make a project action research. Similarly, examining my own experiences through autoethnography would not necessarily make a study action research.

What seems more important is the relationship between inquiry and action.

Riel and Rowell (2017) connect action research with the development of expertise and teacher learning. This helped me think about action research as more than simply collecting information about a setting. I began to see it as a process through which practitioners can investigate problems in their practice, learn from what happens, and use that learning to inform further practice.

Skinner (2017) similarly describes action research as an applied and iterative process in which research can inform the development, adaptation, redesign, and improvement of interventions.

Together, these perspectives reinforced something that I had not fully recognized before. For me, action research is not simply about where the researcher is positioned; it is about the relationship between inquiry, action, learning, and change (Riel & Rowell, 2017; Skinner, 2017).

That realization brought me back to participation.

What Participatory Research Adds

My thinking about participation has also been influenced by Community-Based Participatory Research. I am not suggesting that action research and participatory research are the same approach. Rather, participatory research has given me another way of thinking about what participation might mean within an action-oriented research process.

Wallerstein and Duran (2003) discuss the historical and conceptual foundations of participatory research and emphasize relationships between researchers and communities. One aspect of this perspective that I find particularly important is the recognition that communities bring knowledge grounded in their own experiences, circumstances, and needs to the research process.

This challenges the assumption that researchers are the only people who generate meaningful knowledge within a research project.

Researchers may bring methodological expertise, while participants and communities may bring contextual and experiential knowledge. These forms of knowledge can contribute different perspectives to the same research process (Wallerstein & Duran, 2003).

This has changed how I think about participation. If participants understand a problem from within their own experiences, their knowledge may be important not only when data are collected, but also when findings are interpreted and possible actions are considered.

For me, this creates an important distinction between action being done to or for participants and action being developed with participants.

I do not mean that participants need to control every part of the research. Rather, I am becoming interested in whether they have meaningful opportunities to influence appropriate parts of the research-action cycle.

Who Decides What Happens Next?

This is where my understanding of participation becomes more complicated.

Imagine that a researcher identifies a problem in a workplace or community. Participants are asked about their experiences through surveys, interviews, or focus groups. The researcher then analyzes the information and develops an intervention based on the findings.

At first, this might appear to be participatory. Participants were involved, their experiences were collected, and their perspectives contributed to the research.

But who interprets the findings?

Who decides what those findings mean?

And, perhaps most importantly, who decides what action should be taken?

A participant can be actively involved in a research procedure without having much influence over the direction of the research. They can provide valuable information without having an opportunity to influence how that information is interpreted or what happens because of it.

This does not mean that the research is automatically invalid. Researchers have responsibilities for methodology, analysis, ethics, and the overall conduct of a study.

Instead, it makes me question what kind of participation is taking place and what influence that participation actually has.

This is the point at which I have started thinking about what I call participation beyond participant procedures.

Previously, I mainly thought about participation in procedural terms. Participants could be involved in interviews, surveys, observations, focus groups, or research design.

I am now beginning to see participation differently.

Participants might help identify the problem that needs to be investigated rather than simply responding to a problem already identified by the researcher. They might contribute to developing research questions, comment on preliminary findings, or offer interpretations that researchers had not considered. They might also help evaluate whether an intervention addressed the problem from their perspective.

The important shift for me is that participation does not necessarily have to end when data collection ends.

If research is intended to inform action, participants’ knowledge may remain relevant when researchers are deciding what the findings mean, considering possible responses, and evaluating whether change has actually occurred.

When the Action Is Predetermined

Thinking about participation in this way also makes me question what happens when the action has already been decided.

Suppose researchers determine the problem, conduct the research, interpret the findings, and decide on the intervention. The intervention is then given to practitioners or community members to implement.

There is certainly action in this process.

But the people affected by that action may have had little opportunity to influence it.

This possibility has made me reconsider my original understanding of action research. I initially thought that involving participants in research design was an important feature distinguishing action research from other approaches. I now think the iterative nature of action research creates opportunities to consider participation beyond the initial design stage.

Participants could respond to preliminary findings before an intervention is finalized. They could discuss whether a proposed intervention addresses the actual problem. After implementation, they could identify unintended consequences or explain why an intervention did or did not work as expected.

These forms of involvement connect participants to the action and evaluation stages of the process. They also fit with the iterative character of action research, in which learning from action can inform subsequent planning and action (Lewin, 1946; Skinner, 2017).

This is where I see a meaningful connection between action research and my changing understanding of participation.

The question is not simply whether there was action.

The question is whether the people affected by that action had an opportunity to contribute to understanding the problem, shaping the response, or evaluating what happened.

Participation Does Not Mean Everyone Decides Everything

At the same time, I recognize that greater participation creates challenges.

It would be unrealistic to suggest that every decision in a research project should require complete agreement from every participant. Research still needs structure. Researchers have methodological responsibilities, ethical requirements, deadlines, and practical limitations. Participants may also have different or conflicting views.

For this reason, I do not think meaningful participation means transferring all decision-making authority to participants.

Instead, I think it requires a balance between methodological structure and participant influence.

Researchers can remain responsible for methodological quality and ethical conduct while still creating meaningful opportunities for participants to shape appropriate parts of the research process.

For example, researchers may determine how data are analyzed while remaining open to participants’ interpretations of what the findings mean. An intervention may need to meet methodological or organizational requirements, while participants can still contribute to its development or evaluation.

This distinction is important to me because I do not want to replace one overly simple definition of participation with another.

Participation does not mean that everyone decides everything.

It means that participants are given meaningful opportunities to contribute where their knowledge and experience are relevant.

A Question I Am Still Working Through

I do not think I have reached a final answer about what meaningful participation should look like.

There are clearly practical limits. Not every participant will want to be involved in every stage. Not every decision can be made collectively. Researchers still have responsibilities for methodological quality and ethical conduct.

However, I think my understanding has changed from asking:

“Were participants involved?”

to asking:

“Where did their participation begin, where did it end, and what influence did it have?”

That feels like a more useful question.

My understanding of action research has shifted considerably from where I started. I initially focused on the researcher being an insider and participants being involved in research design. I now see action research more broadly as an iterative relationship between inquiry, action, reflection, evaluation, and change.

Lewin’s work helped me understand the connection between research and social action and the movement between planning, action, and fact-finding (Lewin, 1946). Skinner (2017) and Riel and Rowell (2017) further helped me see how action research can connect inquiry with practice and learning. Wallerstein and Duran (2003), meanwhile, encouraged me to think more critically about community knowledge and involvement.

The most significant shift for me, however, has been my developing understanding of participation.

I am beginning to see that participation is not necessarily measured simply by whether someone took part in a research activity. Those activities can be important, but they do not necessarily tell us what influence participants had on the research.

This is why I have become interested in the idea of participation beyond participant procedures.

For me, the important question is no longer simply whether participants are involved. It is whether their knowledge and perspectives have an opportunity to influence what the research means and what happens as a result.

If researchers decide the action and then simply hand it over to participants or practitioners, participation may have ended before the action even begins.

That does not mean every decision needs to be democratic or that researchers should give up their methodological responsibilities. Instead, it suggests that meaningful participation may involve creating opportunities for participants to influence appropriate parts of the research-action cycle.

Perhaps, then, participation in action research is not simply about asking people to take part.

Perhaps it is about asking where participation begins, where it ends, and whether it has meaningful influence over what happens next.

That is the question I am still working through.

References

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x

Riel, M. M., & Rowell, L. L. (2017). Action research and the development of expertise: Rethinking teacher education. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of action research (pp. 667–688). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_40

Skinner, H. (2017). Action research. In K. Kubacki & S. Rundle-Thiele (Eds.), Formative research in social marketing: Innovative methods to gain consumer insights (pp. 11–31). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1829-9_2

Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2003). The conceptual, historical and practice roots of community-based participatory research and related participatory traditions. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health (pp. 27–52). Jossey-Bass.