Page 54 - text

SeCtion tWo Change approaches & management tools
Participants’ learning is thus informed by a combination of theory, action and observed effects rather than by theory alone. In this way the approach directly addresses the relationship between theory and practice.
Strengths and limitations
Much of the appeal of Action Research lies in its potential to actively engage and involve diverse groups of stakeholders in change, and therefore skilled and collaborative facilitation is vital. It is increasingly used in complex multi-agency settings to explicitly address power imbalances across multiple stakeholder groups. This often includes the training and development of stakeholders in change management techniques to promote the sharing of responsibilities and encourage continuous change.
On this model, external consultants work with organisational members as co-investigators; each bringing their expert knowledge of change techniques or local context to bear – and each gaining insights into the nature of complex change as a result. While there is much agreement on the need for collaboration for the approach to work, accounts within the literature are largely written from the perspectives of facilitators rather than wider team members. Concern may also be expressed over the extent to which inhibitors to change will be identified by collaboration alone; the impact of changes (‘solutions’) are thoroughly investigated; and the model is implemented in the light of the collaborative principles which underpin it, as opposed to being used to build support for a ‘preferred solution’ by powerful individuals.
In relation to social care change, Action Research can support the gathering of evidence to inform the purpose and detail of a change process. Participatory models can facilitate the engagement of people who access services, carers and staff within the research and decision making process. If the findings are written up then they can be shared for wider organisational learning.
Further reading
1. Dickens L and Watkins K (2006) Action research: rethinking Lewin. In: Gallos JV (ed) Organization Development, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 185–222.
2. Greenwood D, Whyte W and Harkavy I (1993) Participatory action research as process and as goal, Human Relations, 46, 2, 175–92.
3. Lewin K (1946) Action research and minority problems. In: Lewin K and Allport GW (eds) (1948) Resolving Social Conflict, London: Harper & Row.
4. Lewin K (1947) Group decisions and social change. In: Gold M (ed) The Complete Social Scientist: A Kurt Lewin Reader, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Peters M and Robinson V (1984) The origins and status of action research, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 2, 113–24.
51