PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1308 - 951X

Original article | International Journal of Research in Teacher Education 2019, Vol. 10(2) 20-27

Critical Participatory Action Research: A Design to Empower Women in a Teacher Education Institution

Olgun Sadık

pp. 20 - 27   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1905-24-0003

Published online: June 26, 2019  |   Number of Views: 38  |  Number of Download: 85


Abstract

This paper discusses historical and meta-theoretical aspects of action research by defining what action research (AR), participatory action research (PAR) and critical participatory action (CPAR) mean in detail and explains a CPAR project idea in a teacher education institution. Action research was categorized under different names; however, all those different approaches represent the same foundations with different purposes. In action research, a group of people work with a researcher(s) to identify a problem, suggest possible strategies as solutions, apply them and recollect information to see how successful their efforts were. In PAR, there is a social aspect of action research that aims to solve real life problems of the participants by giving them the control of the research process and appreciating their values. With CPAR, parts of a system and functions become constraints for reasons of change. CPAR focuses on the issues of the oppressed and aims for social change. The final part of the paper explains a CPAR project idea as an example to improve the current position of women in computer science and make a social change in a teacher education institution. The current social system built inequality in computer science field due to the cultural norms dedicated to females. These norms cause lack of self-confidence in women to pursue CS as a field in their professional career.

Keywords: action research, participatory action research, critical participatory action research, women in computer science


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Sadik, O. (2019). Critical Participatory Action Research: A Design to Empower Women in a Teacher Education Institution . International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 10(2), 20-27.

Harvard
Sadik, O. (2019). Critical Participatory Action Research: A Design to Empower Women in a Teacher Education Institution . International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 10(2), pp. 20-27.

Chicago 16th edition
Sadik, Olgun (2019). "Critical Participatory Action Research: A Design to Empower Women in a Teacher Education Institution ". International Journal of Research in Teacher Education 10 (2):20-27.

References
  1. Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002). The concept of action research. The Learning Organization, 9(3), 125-131.  [Google Scholar]
  2. Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research?. Action Research, 1(1), 9-28. [Google Scholar]
  3. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications. [Google Scholar]
  4. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. [Google Scholar]
  5. Dewey, J. (1929). The Sources of a Science Education. New York. Liveright Publishing Co. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fals-Borda, O. (2006). The North-South convergence: A 30-year first-person assessment of PAR. Action Research, 4(3), 351-358. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2010). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  8. Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  9. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing the relationships between universities and society through action research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 85-106. [Google Scholar]
  10. Goodson, M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. [Google Scholar]
  11. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms, trans. William Rehg. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jack. R Fraenkel, & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kemmis, S. (2006). Participatory action research and the public sphere. Educational Action Research, 14(4), 459–476. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Communicative action and the public sphere. Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS (red.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3, 559-603. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). Introduction: the nature of action research. The Action Research Planner, 5-28. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kemmis, S. (1980). Action Research in Retrospect and Prospect. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143-153. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in Social Psychology, 3, 197-211. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rahman, M. A. (1991). The theoretical standpoint of PAR. Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research, 13-23. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sanford, N. (1970). Whatever happened to action research?. Journal of Social Issues, 26(4), 3-23. [Google Scholar]
  22. Santos, D. 2011. (Participatory) Action Research and the Political Realm. Dissertation at Charles Sturt University.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2006). Appraising the quality of qualitative research. Midwifery, 22(2), 108-119. [Google Scholar]