Search

In FoundationU.com Website

• Foreword
• Preamble
• Ethics in Research
• Authority
• Objectives
• Priority Research Areas
• Procedures for the Conduct of Research at FU
• Treatment of Research Misconduct
• Photocopying of Copyrighted Works
• Guidelines on the Acceptable Uses of Electronic Resources
• FINAL WORD
• Organizational Chart of FU Research Program
• Flowchart for Submission and Approval of Research Proposal
• Appendices
• Downloadables

Appendix A

Procedures for Reviewing Alleged Research Misconduct

[Adopted from: University of California at Berkeley, “Research Misconduct: Policies, Definitions and Procedures,” (2005);
Northwestern University, “Policies & Guidelines in Scientific Research,” (2005); and
Wight State University, “Ethical Standards in the Conduct of Research,” (1993)]

I. Complaint

1. Reports of alleged misconduct are to be made directly to the appropriate dean, who will immediately inform the Director of Research of the substance of the allegations. Complaints by their nature require special consideration (as, for example, cases brought by or against a dean) may be addressed directly to the Director of Research, who will notify the Vice-President for Academic Affairs of the allegation and, thereafter, of its disposition.
2. A preliminary and informal evaluation of the complaint will be made by the dean or by the Director of Research, either of whom may consult in confidence with others as appropriate before passing on he matter.
3. If the dean, or the Director of Research finds that there are no reasonable grounds for the allegation, and if the Director of Research or the VPAA concurs, the complaint will be dismissed without giving any notice to the respondents. A written report stating the reasons for the dismissal shall be maintained, but shall not be made a part of the record of the respondents. The complainant, who shall be notified of the dismissal, may appeal a decision for dismissal directly to the Vice-President for Academic Affairs or to the President.
   

   II. Inquiry

   1. The purpose of an inquiry is to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants a full investigation or requires that special actions be taken pending resolution of the allegation or apparent misconduct. The inquiry will determine whether the allegation of misconduct appears to be well founded, the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, scope of the alleged incident, and relevance of any other information that is available. An inquiry should be completed within sixty (60) days after an allegation is made.
   2. To the extent possible, inquiries and resultant investigations will be conducted in a confidential manner so as to protect the affected parties. Although a person participating directly in the conduct of an inquiry or investigation must be qualified to evaluate the situation, no such person may have a personal interest in the matter or its outcome.
   3. If, after evaluation, the dean believes a complaint warrants further review, the dean may initiate an inquiry or refer the case directly to the Director of Research. In either event, the subject of the complaint shall be notified in writing of the complaint and shall be given a copy of the procedures for reviewing alleged misconduct. The departmental chair will also be notified. At the school level, the inquiry will be conducted by an ad hoc committee of at least three (3) tenured or full-time faculty members chosen by the dean in consultation with the Director of Research. If an inquiry is made at the University level, the Vice-President for Academic Affairs will appoint an ad hoc committee of at least three (3) tenured or full-time faculty member from the University at large, and the same procedures for inquiry will be followed.
   4. The inquiry committee will review the merit of the allegations and recommend a course of action to the dean, or the Director of Research, as appropriate, including whether a full investigation should be conducted. The inquiry committee may have access to documents relating to the alleged misconduct and may interview the complainant. It shall not, however, attempt to reach a decision on the merits of the complaint.
   5. After receiving the written report of the inquiry committee, the dean will forward the findings of the committee, along with his/her recommendations, to the Director of Research, who will determine whether to dismiss the case or to proceed with an investigation. The respondents and the departmental chair will be notified in writing of the Director’s decision.
   6. If the complaint is made directly to the Director of Research, the Director may refer the complaint to the dean for handling at the school level or, after informing the dean, form an ad hoc committee of faculty to conduct an inquiry. After receiving the report of the inquiry committee, the Director of Research will determine whether to dismiss the case or to proceed with an investigation.
   7. If the complainant disagrees with a decision of the Director of Research to dismiss the case, the complainant may appeal to the University President. The President then will review the case and make a final determination as to appropriate action.
   8. If a decision not to investigate is rendered, all the information assembled in the course of the inquiry will be maintained in confidence to permit a later assessment of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted.

   III. Investigation

   1. The purpose of an investigation is to examine thoroughly an allegation of research misconduct and to determine whether such misconduct has taken place.
   2. If the Director of Research determines to proceed with an investigation, he/she will appoint a committee of tenured or full-time faculty to investigate the complaint. When appropriate, the director of research may appoint experts from outside the University to serve on the committee.
   3. The investigation will include, but not be limited to, review of grant or contact files, reports, scholarly publications, manuscripts, and other documents; inspection of laboratory or clinical facilities and/or materials; interviewing of parties with an involvement in, or knowledge about, the case; and submission of a formal report of committee findings, including response of the subject of the complaint.
   4. The respondent will be given a copy of the complaint, the report of the inquiry committee, and the charge to the investigatory committee by the Director of Research. The subject also will be kept informed by the investigatory committee chairperson of the progress of the investigation and will be given the opportunity to respond to the complaint orally and in writing and to provide information for consideration by the committee.
   5. The investigatory committee will focus on matters limited to the charge given to it by the Director of Research, but may review previous research effort of the affected personnel or records of previous complaints of research misconduct, if germane to the investigation.
   6. Neither the University nor the respondent may have legal counsel present at the meetings of the committee, except at the express invitation of the committee. Should legal counsel be invited, the invitation will be extended to both parties. When invited, legal counsel may observe but shall not participate in the proceedings. With the prior approval of the investigatory committee, the respondent may be accompanied by a non-attorney colleague.
   7. The investigatory committee will prepare a draft of final report and provide a copy of such report to the respondent, who may review and comment, offer corrections, accept its conclusions, or deny the allegations. The final report of the committee will be transmitted to the Director of Research, along with any minority reports and responses by the respondent. The committee’s report will respond to the charge given by the Director of Research and will assess the validity of the allegations.
   8. The report of the committee and its attachments, along with the recommendation of the Director of Research, will be forwarded to the President for review and disposition. If the President finds that the respondent has not engaged in research misconduct, the president will dismiss the complaint. If the President finds that the respondent has engaged in research misconduct, the President may initiate University procedures leading to possible sanctions. The President will inform the respondent and the Vice-President for Academic Affairs, the Director of Research, dean, and departmental chair of his/her decision.

   IV. Other Responsibilities

   1. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will notify the granting agency of the facts of the case, the conclusions rendered, and the disposition of the matter by the University. The Director of Research will notify other outside parties as may be appropriate, including publishers or institutions with whom the party found to have committed research misconduct is now or has been professionally affiliated. The President will consider release of information about the incident to the public.
   2. If the alleged misconduct is not substantiated by the investigation, formal efforts will be made to restore fully the reputation of the respondent. If it is further demonstrated that the charges were brought under malicious or dishonest circumstances, the President may bring appropriate action against the complainant or others involved.
   3. A permanent record of committee reports, exhibits, minutes of meetings, and other materials will be kept by the Director of Research. These records will be protected from release if release would compromise the conduct of an investigation, constitute unwarranted invasion of privacy, or reveal the content of communication or recommendations of action to be taken. In the case of sponsored projects, the Director of Research is responsible for determining and complying with reporting requirements, representing the University in all negotiations with the sponsor, and implementing any administrative actions that may be directed by the sponsor.
   4. Consistent with the procedures described above, those responsible for the conduct of inquiries and investigations shall have at any time the authority to supplement and clarify applicable procedures, provided that adequate notice is given to persons affected by such actions.

Appendix B

Guidelines for Determining “Fair Use”

[Adopted from University of California, “Permissible Photocopying of Copyrighted Works,” (1986)]

Educators including representatives of higher education developed, along with publishers, a set of minimum standards of fair use which were set forth in the “Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not-for-Profit Educational Institutions”.

Since these standards are often not realistic in a University setting, the following Guidelines should be used to judge if intended photocopying of copyrighted materials constitutes fair use in teaching and research at the Foundation University.

1. 1. Single Copying for Teachers

A single copy may be made of any of the following by or for a teacher at his / her individual request for his / her scholarly research or use in teaching or preparation to teach a class:

a) A chapter from a book;

b) An article from a periodical or newspaper;

c) A short story, short essay or short poem, whether or not taken from a collective work;

d) A chart, graph, diagram, cartoon, or picture from a book, periodical, or newspaper;

Multiple Copies for Classroom Use

Multiple copies (not to exceed in any event more than one copy per student in a course) may be made by or for the teachers giving the course for classroom use or discussion provided that:

The copying does not substantially exceed the test of brevity as defined below;

Meets the cumulative effect test as defined below;

Each copy includes a notice of copyright.

Definitions

Brevity

Poetry: A complete poem if less than 250 words or, from a longer poem, an excerpt of not more than 250 words.

Prose: Either a complete article, story or essay of less than 2,500 words or an excerpt of not more than 2,500 words from any prose work.

Illustration: One chart, graph, diagram, cartoon, or picture per book or per periodical issue. In some cases, such illustrations are copyrighted individually and cannot be reproduced under fair use.

Cumulative Effect

The copying of the material is for only one course per class term of the instructor for whom the copies are made.

Not more than one short poem, article, story, essay or two excerpts may be copied from the same author, nor more than three from the same collective work or periodical volume during one class term.

There shall not be more than nine instances of such multiple copying for one course during one class term.

The limitations stated in (1) and (2) above shall not apply to current news periodicals and newspapers and current news sections of other periodicals.

Promotions as to (a) and (b) above notwithstanding any of the above, the following shall be prohibited:

There shall be no copying of or from works intended to be “consumable” in the course of study or of teaching. These include workbooks, exercises, standardized tests and test booklets, answer sheets, and like consumable materials.

Copying shall not:

substitute for the purchase of books, publishers’ reprints, or periodicals;

be directed by higher authority;

No charge shall be made to the student beyond the actual cost of the photocopying.

Situations Not Specifically Covered by Foundation University Guidelines

The doctrine of “fair use” may permit reproduction of copyrighted works in excess of the word limit restriction specified in the FU Guidelines.

Since this is an area of unclear legal definition one should use caution and discretion in such copying and should seek advice from the University Legal Counsel for legal opinion, or request prior written permission directly from the copyrighted owner to perform copying substantially the limits enumerated in the Guidelines.

Any questions regarding the application of the Guidelines in specific cases, whether a work is covered under copyright protection, or the ways to secure permission from publishers should also be referred to the University Legal Counsel.

Copyright Requiring Prior Written Permission from the Copyright Owner

1. A. Copying for Profit“Fair use” extends only to non-profit copying. Teachers should not charge students more than the actual cost of photocopying, and not make copies for students who are not in their classes without obtaining permission. This applies to classroom copies made and distributed by a commercial copy center outside the University, as well as University facilities.B. Unpublished WorksOne should obtain permission from owners of unpublished works in order to copy from them. The law gives automatic copyright protection to unpublished works from the time they are created until they are published. Unpublished works, such as theses and dissertations, may be protected by copyright.

   C. Special Works

   In some cases, certain specialized materials such as maps, anatomical diagrams, and drawings are copyrighted separately even though they appear in a text book or other printed work. In this situation, the reproduction of the material would not constitute fair use even if only one illustration from a book were used. One must obtain permission to reproduce such individually copyrighted materials. Consumable Works Teachers must secure prior written permission before making multiple copies of copyrighted works which are intended to be consumed in classroom activities such as workbooks, exercises, and standardized tests and their answers.

   Infringement

   Owners of copyrights can attempt to halt infringement by suing for injunctions, impounding or destruction of infringing articles, and can seek costs of suit and attorneys’ fees. Additionally, they can seek recoup actual money damages suffered by the copyright owner as well as the infringer’s profits. When there are only nominal monetary losses, owners can, instead of seeking their actual damages, claim “statutory” damages up to 10,000 (or up to 50,000 if the infringement was “willful”). The University will defend an employee who photocopies in the course and scope of his or her employment duties.

   Even if the copying is held to infringe, the Copyright Act exempts employees of non-profit educational institutions, libraries, or archives from statutory damages, if the employee believed that the copying was a fair use and had reasonable grounds from that belief. Adhering to the Guidelines above should afford reasonable grounds for believing one is engaging in “fair use”.

   Obtaining Permission from the Copyright Owner

   University employees should obtain prior written permission from the copyright owner to copy materials in those situations when the proposed copying does not come within the doctrine of “fair use”. Obtaining such permission is usually not difficult and, in most cases for classroom use, is granted with no royalty charge.

   How to Obtain Permission

   When a proposed use of photocopied material requires a faculty member to request permission, communication of complete and accurate information to the copyright owner will facilitate the request. The Association of American Publishers suggests that the following information be included to expedite the process:

   1) Title, author and/or editor, and edition of materials to be duplicated;
   2) Exact material to be used, giving amount, page numbers, chapters and, if possible, a photocopy
   of the material;
   3) Number of copies to be made;
   4) Use to be made of duplicated materials (including time period or duration if copying on an on-going basis is desired);
   5) Form of distribution (classroom, newsletter, etc.);
   6) Whether or not the material is to be sold; and
   7) Type of reprint (ditto, photocopy, offset, typeset).

   When the copyright owner is the publisher of the work, the request should be sent, together with a self-addressed return envelope, to the permission department of the publisher in question. If the address of the publisher does not appear at the front of the material, it may be obtained from the Literary Marketplace (for books) or Ulrich’s International Periodicals (for journals), both published by the R.R. Bowker Company. When the copyright owner is the author, the request should be directed to the author either in care of the publisher’s permissions department, as set forth above, or at the author’s address. For purposes of proof, and to define the scope of the permission, it is important that the permission be in writing. Many publishers have registered with the Copyright Clearance Center, 21 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. This organization can facilitate obtaining permission to copy. One must check with the campus library about the use of this service.

   The process of requesting permission directly from the publisher requires time, as the publisher must check the status and ownership of rights and related matters, and evaluate the request. It is advisable, therefore, to allow sufficient lead time. In some instances the publisher may assess a fee for permission, which may be passed on to students who receive copies of the photocopied material.

The following is a sample letter to a copyright owner (in this example a publisher) requesting permission to copy.

Date

Material Permission Department
Academic Book Company
200 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10016

Dear Sir/Madam:

I would like to ask permission to copy the following for use in my class (name of class) (next semester) or (next semester and subsequent semesters during which the course is offered.)

Title: Ethics and the Law, Second Edition
Copyright: Academic Book Co., 1965, 1971
Author: John Smith
Material to be duplicated: Chapter 9 (photocopy enclosed).
Number of Copies: 50
Distribution: The material will be distributed to students in my class and they will pay only the cost of the photocopying.
Type of reprint: Photocopy
Use: The chapter will be used as supplementary teaching materials.

I have enclosed a self-addressed envelope for your convenience in replying to this request.

Sincerely,

Juan dela Cruz
Instructor

Appendix C

Policy on Acceptable Use of Electronic Resources

[Adopted from: University of Pennsylvania, “Guidelines for Acceptable Use of Electronic Resources,” 2005]

Summary

This policy defines the boundaries of “acceptable use” of limited University electronic resources, including computers, networks, electronic mail services and electronic information sources, as detailed below. It includes by reference a self-contained compilation of specific rules that can be modified as the electronic information environment evolves.
The policy is based on the principle that the electronic information environment is provided to support University business and its mission of education, research and service. Other uses are secondary. Uses that threaten the integrity of the system; the function of non-University equipment that can be accessed through the system; the privacy or actual or perceived safety of others; or that are otherwise illegal are forbidden.
By using University electronic information systems one assumes personal responsibility for their appropriate use and agrees to comply with this policy and other applicable University policies, as well as laws and regulations, as detailed below.
The policy defines penalties for infractions, up to and including loss of system access, employment termination or expulsion. In addition some activities may lead to risk of legal liability, both civil and criminal.
Users of electronic information systems are urged in their own interest to review and understand the contents of this policy.

Purposes

The Foundation University makes computing resources (including, but not limited to, computer facilities and services, computers, networks, electronic mail, electronic information and data, and video and voice services) available to faculty, students, staff, registered guests, and the general public to support the educational, research and service missions of the University.
When demand for computing resources may exceed available capacity, priorities for their use will be established and enforced. Authorized faculty and staff may set and alter priorities for exclusively local computing/networking resources. The priorities for use of University-wide computing resources are:
Highest: Uses that directly support the educational, research and service missions of the University.
Medium: Other uses that indirectly benefit the education, research and service missions of the University, as well as and including reasonable and limited personal communications.
Lowest: Recreation, including game playing.
Forbidden: All activities in violation of the General Standards or prohibited in the Specific Rules interpreting this policy.
The University may enforce these priorities by restricting or by limiting usages of lower priority in circumstances where their demand and limitations of capacity impact or threaten to impact usages of higher priority.

Implied consent

Each person with access to the University’s computing resources is responsible for his/her appropriate use and agrees to comply with all applicable University, School, and departmental policies and regulations, and with applicable laws and regulations, as well as with the acceptable use/policies of affiliated networks and systems

Open Expression in the Electronic Information Environment: The rights to freedom of thought, inquiry and expression, are paramount values of the University community. The University’s commitment to the principles of open expression extends to and includes the electronic information environment, and interference in the exercise of those rights is a violation of this policy and of the Guidelines on Open Expression. As provided in the Guidelines, in case of conflict between the principles of the Guidelines on Open Expression and this or other University policies, the principles of the Guidelines take precedence.
General Standards for the Acceptable Use of Computer Resources: Failure to uphold the following General Standards for the Acceptable Use of Computer Resources constitutes a violation of this policy and may be subject to disciplinary action.
The General Standards for the Acceptable Use of Computer Resources require:

Responsible behavior with respect to the electronic information environment at all times;

Behavior consistent with the mission of the University and with authorized activities of the University or members of the University community;

Respect for the principles of open expression;

Compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and University policies;

Truthfulness and honesty in personal and computer identification;

Respect for the rights and property of others, including intellectual property rights;

Behavior consistent with the privacy and integrity of electronic networks, electronic data and information, and electronic infrastructure and systems; and

Respect for the value and intended use of human and electronic resources.

Enforcement and Penalties for Violation: Any person who violates any provision of this policy, of the Specific Rules interpreting this policy, of other relevant University policies, or of applicable laws or regulations may face sanctions up to and including termination or expulsion. Depending on the nature and severity of the offense, violations can be subject to disciplinary action through the Student Disciplinary System or disciplinary procedures applicable to faculty and staff.
It may at times be necessary for authorized systems administrators to suspend someone’s access to University computing resources immediately for violations of this policy, pending interim resolution of the situation (for example by securing a possibly compromised account and/or making the owner of an account aware in person that an activity constitutes a violation). In the case of egregious and continuing violations suspension of access may be extended until final resolution by the appropriate disciplinary body.
System owners, administrators or managers may be required to investigate violations of this policy and to ensure compliance.

Amendment

Formal amendment of the General Standards of Acceptable Use of Computing Resources or other aspects of this policy may be promulgated by the President following consultation with the appropriate sector of the University community.

Interpreting this policy

As technology evolves, questions will arise about how to interpret the general standards expressed in this policy. The Vice-President for Academic Affairs, after consultation with the appropriate sector of the University community and subject to the same waiting period and publication of provisions indicated above, shall publish specific rules interpreting this policy.

Waiver

When restrictions in this policy interfere with the research, educational or service missions of the University, members of the University community may request a written waiver from the Vice-President for Finance and Administration (or designee).

Further information

For further information about the University computer regulations, contact the Chair, Department of Computer Studies, Information Technology Center, Foundation University, Dr. Miciano Road Dumaguete City or visit the Foundation University website www. foundationu.com.

Specific Rules Interpreting the Policy on Acceptable Use of Electronic Resources

The following specific rules apply to all uses of University computing resources. These rules are not an exhaustive list of prescribed behaviors, but are intended to implement and illustrate the General Standards for the Acceptable Use of Computer Resources, other relevant University policies, and applicable laws and regulations. Additional specific rules may be promulgated for the acceptable use of individual computer systems or networks by the Department of Computer Studies.
Content of communications

Except as provided by applicable laws, regulations or other University policies, the content of electronic communications is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action.

Unlawful communications, including threats of violence, obscenity, child pornography, and harassing communications (as defined by law), are prohibited.

The use of University computer resources for private business or commercial activities (except where such activities are otherwise permitted or authorized under applicable University policies), fundraising or advertising on behalf of non-University organizations, or the reselling of University computer resources to non-University individuals or organizations, and the unauthorized use of the University’s name, are prohibited. The Vice President for Finance and Administration (or designee) may specify rules and specific forums where limited use of University resources for non-recurring exchange and sale of personal items is permitted.

Identification of users
Anonymous and pseudonymous communications are permitted except when expressly prohibited by the operating guidelines or stated purposes of the electronic services to, from, or through which the communications are sent. However, when investigating alleged violations the President may direct the Chair of Computer Studies or an authorized system administrator, to attempt to identify the originator of anonymous/pseudonymous messages, and may refer such matters to appropriate disciplinary bodies to prevent further distribution of messages from the same source.
The following activities and behaviors are prohibited:

Misrepresentation (including forgery) of the identity of the sender or source of an electronic communication;

Acquiring or attempting to acquire passwords of others;

Using or attempting to use the computer accounts of others;

Alteration of the content of a message originating from another person or computer with intent to deceive; and

The unauthorized deletion of another person’s news group postings.

Access to computer resources
The following activities and behaviors are prohibited:

The use of restricted-access University computer resources or electronic information without or beyond one’s level of authorization;

The interception or attempted interception of communications by parties not explicitly intended to receive them;

Making University computing resources available to individuals not affiliated with the Foundation University without approval of an authorized University official;

Making available any materials the possession or distribution of which is illegal;

The unauthorized copying or use of licensed computer software;

Unauthorized access, possession, or distribution, by electronic or any other means, of electronic information or data that is confidential under the University’s policies regarding privacy or the confidentiality of student, administrative, personnel, archival, or other records, or as defined by the cognizant Data Steward;

Intentionally compromising the privacy or security of electronic information; and

Intentionally infringing upon the intellectual property rights of others in computer programs or electronic information (including plagiarism and unauthorized use or reproduction).

Operational integrity
The following activities and behaviors are prohibited:

Interference with or disruption of the computer or network accounts, services, or equipment of others, including, but not limited to, the propagation of computer “worms” and “viruses”, the sending of electronic chain mail, and the inappropriate sending of “broadcast” messages to large numbers of individuals or hosts;

Failure to comply with requests from appropriate University officials to discontinue activities that threaten the operation or integrity of computers, systems or networks, or otherwise violate this policy;

Revealing passwords or otherwise permitting the use by others (by intent or negligence) of personal accounts for computer and network access;

Altering or attempting to alter files or systems without authorization;

Unauthorized scanning of networks for security vulnerabilities;

Attempting to alter any University computing or networking components (including, but not limited to, bridges, routers, and hubs) without authorization or beyond one’s level of authorization;

Unauthorized wiring, including attempts to create unauthorized network connections, or any unauthorized extension or re-transmission of any computer or network services;

Intentionally damaging or destroying the integrity of electronic information;

Intentionally disrupting the use of electronic networks or information systems;

Intentionally wasting human or electronic resources; and

Negligence leading to the damage of University electronic information, computing/networking equipment

Appendix D

1. Action research international
   Paper 2: Yoland Wadsworth (1998)

   What is Participatory Action Research?
   Action research international is a refereed on-line journal of
   action research published under the aegis of the Institute of
   Workplace Research, Learning and Development, and Southern
   Cross University Press
   About this article
   For at least seventy years, some researchers around the world have been identifying what they do using terms like ‘action research’, or ‘participatory research’, or a combination of these. Some have stressed the action component,1 while others have focused more on the participatory process. 2 Still others have come from the field of social science and have identified it as a means of inquiry or research per se. 3
   This paper came about in response to requests to speak about some of the collective wisdom that has been generated over many decades by people who have identified what they do using the term ‘participatory action research’. It is the way I tell the story.

2. Throughout this account participatory action research is contrasted with formulations of conventional research science. For me, participatory action research is not a different and separate matter from science at all, but constitutes a formulation of how I understand all science in the wake of the wave of thinking that is popularly being called the ‘new physics’. This ‘new physics’ or ‘new paradigm science’ 4 in the natural physical world seems to me to match a ‘new paradigm science’ in the social world. I identify ‘participatory action research’ 5 not as an optional variant or specialist technique, but as one of the more inclusive descriptions of this new understanding of social science.
   This short paper sets out to identify some of the main characteristics of participatory action research for me, and to try and show why I have come to the following two conclusions:
3. • ‘Participatory action research’ is a description of social research per se (albeit social research which is more conscious of its underlying assumptions, and collectivist nature, its action consequences and its driving values).
   • It faces numerous barriers to its practice which mean that, even when we think we might be doing ‘it’, we often have our doubts! I have come to conclude that pretty much all of the research we are involved in, is more or less an approximation in the direction of ‘it’. That is, every piece of research is more or less participatory. It more or less enables action as part of the process. And it all involves more or less critical reflexive, skeptical and imaginative inquiry.

   I have found it handy to summarize its major distinguishing characteristics under the three headings which make up its name, that is: ‘participation’, ‘action’ and ‘research’. I commence with an attempt to outline the defining characteristics of participatory action research as research in the kind of everyday experience we have whenever we want to inquire into something in our lives. In the most tiny example can be found the same structure or logic of inquiry as in the most extensive long -term university research program.

   

   The research framework

4. What do we typically do when we ‘do a piece of research’? Let’s take a couple of everyday examples.We are going about our business and a piece of equipment fails to work. We are pulled up in our tracks as we experience a discrepancy between our practice and our expectations. Out of our need for it to ‘work’, a question arises: ‘Why is it so?’. We have a look at the piece of equipment: perhaps involving a little piece of hands-on ‘participant observation’ fieldwork! Perhaps we employ also some ‘secondary analysis’ as we consult the maker’s manual for their theories and advice! We may develop a hunch (hypothesis) and draw some conclusions. Then we try it out in a form of a naturalistic experiment and we ‘give it a go’. Again we go about our business. The equipment works and we carry on. Or, it fails to work again and we again stop in our tracks and raise our question again, and try further fieldwork to develop yet another theory and try yet another tack, and so on.We are looking for our daughter’s shoes in the early morning scramble. We review previous ‘historical data’ (memories of earlier experiences!) as part of planning our ‘research design’. We generate several hypotheses and move quickly into the ‘field’ to involve other participants and gather new data to test them! We use some observational anthropology. Two brief interviews with daughter and sibling result in reports of failed hunches! (they weren’t in their cupboards or on the back verandah!); we engage in further open-ended interviews with the entire household population. Then secondary analysis of the previous day’s timetable generates a further hunch (Sports Day!: shoes replaced with runners) and an additional round of observation reveals: shoes in school bag!
   These trivial microcosms contain a structure which reliably:
   • commences - ironically - with stopping. That is, we do not begin to inquire until we actually suspend our current action because of the:
   • raising of a question; which then provokes us to go about:
   • planning ways to get answers - ways which will involve identifying and involving ‘questioners’, ‘the questioned’ and an idea of for who or for what we desire answers;
   • engaging in fieldwork about new, current or past action in order to get answers and improve our experiential understanding of the problematic situation;
   • generating from the ‘answers’ an imaginative idea of what to do to change and improve our actions;

   the putting into practice of the new actions (followed by further stopping, reflecting and possible ‘problematisation’).This is precisely the cycle of action, reflection, raising of questions, planning of ‘fieldwork’ to review current (and past) actions - its conduct, analysis of experiences encountered, the drawing of conclusions, and the planning of new and transformed actions - that characterizes all research endeavor. If we are to distinguish this cycle in any ways from what we ‘do all the time’, we find the important distinctions are in degree rather than kind. That is, in participatory action research we are:

5. more conscious of ‘problematising’ an existing action or practice and more conscious of who is problematising it and why we are problematising it;
6. more explicit about ‘naming’ the problem, and more self-conscious about raising an unanswered question and focusing an effort to answer it;
7. more planned and deliberate about commencing a process of inquiry and involving others who could or should be involved in that inquiry;
8. more systematic and rigorous in our efforts to get answers;
9. more carefully documenting and recording action and what people think about it and in more detail and in ways which are accessible to other relevant parties;
10. more intensive and comprehensive in our study, waiting much longer before we ‘jump’ to a conclusion;
11. more self-sceptical in checking our hunches;
12. attempting to develop deeper understandings and more useful and more powerful theory about the matters we are researching, in order to produce new knowledge which can inform improved action or practice; 6 and
13. changing our actions as part of the research process, and then further researching these changed actions.

One of the ways this understanding of research differs from conceptions of conventional research or ‘old paradigm science’ is revealed in the diagrams below. Conventional research often sees itself as proceeding from point A to point B along a straight line - commencing with a hypothesis and proceeding to a conclusion which may then be published in a journal.

However new paradigm social science (or participatory action research) considers it critical to the success of the inquiry that the hypothesis is relevant and useful and thus asks: Where did the hunches or hypotheses come from? Are they just any old hypotheses? Or have they been carefully constructed and well-grounded, over time, from deep and engaged involvement in the field being studied? Are they plausible? Are they relevant? Are they already well-evidenced and thus already substantiate new action? (rather than having to spend time re-discovering or re-confirming the already-established).
Furthermore, new paradigm science asks: Have they been checked in practice? Findings, ‘discoveries’ or new ideas are not accepted until tested in action - otherwise they remain merely ‘interesting ideas’ or ‘just academic’.
Instead of a linear model, participatory action research thus proceeds through cycles, ‘starting’ with reflection on action, and proceeding round to new action which is then further researched. The new actions differ from the old actions - they are literally in different places.

Interestingly, all science seems to me to follow this logic. However many ‘old paradigm’ scientists are unaware of their implication in this. There is always new action resulting - even if it is just the same as the old (which we might describe as reproducing the ‘status quo’). Inquiry inevitably leads somewhere - even if it isn’t far from where it started, or only a small number of people are consciously aware of it. Once inquirers are aware of the implications of inquiring, they are faced with a choice. They can ignore it (or treat it as peripheral or of nuisance value), or they can resolve to work with it as a positive feature of their research environment. Action researchers, it seems to me, are really just researchers who have come to understand the practical and ethical implications of the inevitability of the value-driven and action-effects of their inquiry, that is:

• the effects of raising some questions and not others,
• the effects of involving some people in the process (or even apparently only one) and not others,
• the effects of observing some phenomena and not others,
• the effects of making this sense of it and not alternative senses, and
• the effects of deciding to take this action (or ‘no’ action) as a result of it rather than any other action and so on.

All research involves these kinds of decisions. Participatory action research attempts to make these decisions more consciously and in relation to more clearly-worked out purposes, and using more appropriate designs and techniques for exploring them.

The action element

1. All research seems to me to be implicated in action. Not only is research itself an action in and on existing situations, but it also always has consequences. Things inevitably change as a result of research - the mere act of asking questions is an intervention in a situation, and giving and hearing answers and making sense of them inevitably brings about changes in those involved. Whether people then choose to continue as before or to change course means that the new situation will either be different from that before, or it will be the same. To ‘not change’ is nevertheless action: some might call it inaction!
   Participatory action research is aware of its inevitable intervention in the social situations within which it operates and seeks to turn these to consciously-applied effect. Most participatory action research sets out to explicitly study something in order to change and improve it. It most often arises from an unsatisfactory situation that those most affected wish to alter for the better (although it can also arise from the experience of something which works well, which provokes the desire to reproduce or expand it).
   The moving to new and improved action involves a creative ‘moment’ of transformation. 7 This involves an imaginative leap from a world of ‘as it is’ to a glimpse of a world ‘as it could be’. Where existing situations benefit or promote some but disadvantage or subordinate others, then creative change may be construed as ‘political’. As well, participatory action research does not conceptualize this as the development of predictive cause-effect theory (‘if this, then that’). Instead, as in the slogan: ‘the future is made, not predicted’, it is more like ‘what if we…, then maybe’. Possibility theory rather than predictive theory. That is, human actors are both willful and capable of thwarting research prediction, and willful and capable of selecting and implementing theories or probabilities they want to see manifested! Conventional science sees this as undesirable ‘contamination’ and ‘bias’. Participatory action research sees this as a goal, and the stuff of which ‘real life’ is made or enacted.
   Action research, like the discovery phase of any science, knows it is coming from somewhere and going to somewhere, even though it does not know in advance where precisely it is going to end up or what the new state will look like. Participatory action research, unlike conventional science, does not consider this to be an embarrassment! However it can be difficult for researchers (and research funders) accustomed primarily to a formal experimental approach (the verificationist 8 phase of science), since all that can be stated at the outset is that certain parties have noticed certain problematic matters and have planned certain participatory processes in order to try and ‘crack it’ for a new way to approach the matter. 9 It may be that funders need to fund iterative or emergent research in connecting stages of ‘seeding’, ‘sapling’ and ‘tree’ phases (and not with up to a year’s time lapse in between, as at present).
   As there is an infinity of ‘could be’ worlds, then the action phase is crucially guided by the depth and quality of theorizing achieved by the research participants. Superficial or trivial research will result in superficial and trivial ideas for practice.
   The major challenge for all participatory action researchers (and indeed all researchers) is to design a process which can result in maximum creativity and imagination. Some of the most spectacular ideas have come about because researchers (or self-researchers) were able to draw on unusual sources for ideas, and then submit them to their critical reference group 10 to see if they ‘resonated’. If such creative and imaginative efforts have been well-driven by a critical reference group perspective and well-grounded in an understanding of the critical reference group and their context or environment (including the effects of others and of ‘structural’ matters or opportunities impinging), then they stand a much better chance of ‘getting it right’ and ideas ‘taking off’. Pretty much every initiative we now see around us as A Good Thing happened in this way: as a product of people who ‘knew their turf’, knew who they were doing it for, and had the imagination to collectively envision a desirable new state and attract others who shared that vision.
   In participatory action research, while there is a conceptual difference between the ‘participation’ ‘action’ and ‘research’ elements, in its most developed state these differences begin to dissolve in practice. That is, there is not participation followed by research and then hopefully action. Instead there are countless tiny cycles of participatory reflection on action, learning about action and then new informed action which is in turn the subject of further reflection. Every minute of every hour may see participants absorbing new ways of seeing or thinking in the light of their experience, leading to new related actions being taken on the spot. Often these will pass unnoticed and unrecorded, but with practice these too become the subject of further reflection and group self-understanding. Change does not happen at ‘the end’ - it happens throughout. A hallmark of a genuine participatory action research process is that it may change shape and focus over time (and sometimes quite unexpectedly) as participants focus and refocus their understandings about what is ‘really’ happening and what is really important to them.

The participation element

‘…action research is the way groups of people can organize the conditions under which they can learn from their own experiences and make this experience accessible to others.’’ 11
It is not possible to do any social research without the participation of other human beings. In typical research there might be one or more ‘researchers’, there might be people who are ‘researched’, and there might be people who are ‘researched for’ - such as those who are to be informed or influenced by findings, or, at a more fundamental level, those who have a problem on which the research is to cast light. However even the research that seems to involve ‘no-one’, such as the most lone and unobtrusive academic researcher, examining written historical records of people long dead, who seems to be isolated from ‘real world practice’, and is relatively unknown to peers, still exists in a social world peopled by family, friends, fellow academics, academic administrators, tax-payers and politicians, funding bodies, editors of journals or thesis-examiners, as well as by the written representations of the researched (and there may also be some living representatives) which nevertheless must ‘speak’ and be ‘heard’ and understood by the researcher. These all impinge on, and ‘construct’ the research environment and it’s findings, regardless of their apparent invisibility. 12
More usually there are known groups of researchers, people who commission the research, and live populations of ‘researched’ and ‘researched for’, many of whom may know of the research and want to have a say about its conduct or contribute a view about its subject-matter.
Various parties to research ‘participate’, but the questions become ‘Who is treated as participants?’, ‘How much do they participate?’, ‘In what ways do they participate?’, and ‘How is their participation taken into account or not taken into account?’.
Indeed the reason why many of us have felt compelled to add the “p” for participation to the “ar” for action research has been because we have noticed that many have taken existing levels of conventional ‘participation’ for granted. More importantly there may have been a complacency about the adequacy of current input. Here is a chicken and egg. How do existing participants know the limits of their own perceptions without new participants being there to illuminate the relativism of the existing participants’ perceptions - and how would the new participants get to be involved, invited (or tolerated) if their value is not known?
It is worth drawing out the differences between the parties to research in more detail to examine the new possibilities for participation.
In research there are typically four conceptual parties to research:

• The researcher/s
• The researched
• The researched for (in the sense of having the problem the research is to resolve) - what we have called the critical reference group
• The researched for (in the sense that they might benefit from better information about the situation - they may be trying to care for those with the problem, or provide, administer or fund the problematic thing or an activity or service which addresses the matter or tries to manage, treat, ameliorate or prevent it, and so on).

Participation may be for varying reasons which revolve more or less around an interest in the topic or question.
In a conventional piece of research there may be less apparent participation. For example, management (group iv), is puzzled or uneasy about some existing matter, or under pressure from another group (iii) or (iv) to Do Something. They might typically employ an independent researcher, (i), to go and study some of the people-with-a-problem, (iii) and perhaps also have some informal discussions with staff, (iv). They may limit their involvement to an initial briefing, the receipt of progress reports, attendance at a steering committee, and receipt of a final report. The researcher may be an academic or a private consultant with some other interests in the matter themselves, (i) and (iv). They are constrained to appear to be neutral or perhaps mildly on everyone’s side. They may also be on a short term, highly paid contract with high performance expectations. They expect to get into the field, get the data, get out cleanly, write it up, add some recommendations that seem feasible and then move on to the next demanding job.
The people-with-a-problem: ‘clients’, ‘patients’, ‘students’, or other group of disadvantaged people, (iii), may be directly hurt or disadvantaged by the existing problematic matter, and may or may not have questioned whether there might be a reason for it, and/or a better way. This group is frequently part of ‘the researched’, although sometimes they may not know it. If they do, they may typically find themselves on the receiving end of a questionnaire or an interview. One of their number may be invited to sit on an Advisory Committee. Some other ‘stakeholders’: staff, carers, providers, (iv), may be indirectly involved. In conventional research, they may also be questionnaire or interviewed about the group-with-the-problem, or about their service to them or care of them, and perhaps even asked what they think should be changed; and they might also be on the Committee. All then await the researchers’ announcement of their ‘findings’.
What can typically plague the whole process of such conventional research are the consequences of non participation:

• In the first place there can be confusion or lack of agreement regarding the direction and purpose of the inquiry (for whom and for what).
• There is subsequent disagreement about the form the study should take (how, where, when, who should be involved).
• Alternatively the wrong direction is taken and dissent suppressed or ignored. The wrong questions are asked. The data is then irrelevant. And the conclusions useless.
• There can be misunderstandings about participants’ perceptions (about the situation being studied).
• There can be conflict over interpretations and analyses (the ‘why’ and ‘how’).
• And there can be disagreement about what these imply for change in action (what next).
• And there can be shooting of the messenger! Or of the manager. Or mutinous troops. And critical reference groups’ situations left unchanged.

There is an important point to be made here. Over many years I have observed that where the parties (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) are more distant from each other and from involvement in the process of inquiry, trouble ensues.
Once in the past a place might have been seen for participation by the various parties at the outset on a committee, or at the end as recipients of a report. Increasingly instead they might become contributors to all stages of the research cycle - as designers, selectors of methods, contributors of ‘data’, ‘analyzers’ and ‘concluders’, and then ‘takers (or monitors) of new actions’, and so on. All parties begin to operate much more as both co-researchers and co-subjects.
In participatory action research, the four conceptual categories of participants may thus in practice become much more overlapping depending on the purposes of the research, and who is ‘driving’ it. For example, there may be more participation, where a self help group (iii), self-researches (i) its own experiences (ii) and those of others (iv), for itself or for others (i or iv).
The arguments for there being more rather than less participation by all four parties are as follows:

• Those commissioning or carrying out the research These usually already participate the most since they choose the questions, decide how they will be answered, interpret the answers and decide what has been ‘discovered’. Yet frequently even they feel constrained to disguise, restrict or eliminate their ideas and values, or refrain from putting in their experiences or their views or opinions, on the grounds the research should be ‘objective’ and ‘unbiased’, and ‘value-free’. In this way, other participants may never be properly informed about the nature and purposes of the research, and the research design may begin way back ‘behind the eight ball’ instead of where there is a genuine unanswered question. This may truly bias or distort the research. Feminist 13 and other critical theory 14 research as well as so-called fourth generation evaluation 15 has begun to show a way for researchers (and those commissioning the research) to be more genuine and honest participants in and contributors to their own research.

These approaches have shown also how there can be more of a dissolution of the distinction between researcher/s and ‘researched for’ (the critical reference group).

• Thus, for example, a more participating researcher would be more clear about why they are interested in the research - perhaps describing their own personal experiences that have led to the questions they are wanting to ask. This clarifies the purposes for other participants, and helps each participant know where the other is ‘coming from’. Further, the participating researcher/s, having identified the interests they wish to pursue, can see (and be seen in) their relationship to the critical reference group, and pursue more consciously and sceptically, alternative formulations of the situation.
• The critical reference group
  This group conventionally participates least since professional and academic research largely researches on and about and speaks for the disadvantaged, or groups with unmet needs the research is meant to benefit. Laura Nader has called this approach ‘studying down’ (1972). The identification and involvement of the critical reference group, or even broad relevant critical reference ‘arenas’ or critical reference ‘publics’ however, I have noticed leads to:
  • improved relevance of the inquiry to those who share in the problem;
  • sharper focusing of the research questions;
  • enhanced relevance of the inquiry to those whose jobs are to do something about the problem (whether as a service provider, a carer, an administrator, a funder, etc.);
  • increased effectiveness of the research design (what is asked, by whom, of whom, when, where and how);
  • improved meaningfulness of the information thus gained (the researched especially have a say in whether any inquiry ‘got it right’ in regard to the meaning of what they said or did);
  • the power and accuracy of the theory developed to understand the problem;
  • the relevance, creativity and effectiveness of the new actions decided-on;
  • and the commitment to observing the new actions and acting on and researching of them further.

The difficulties in involving critical reference groups and them remaining involved are numerous. The discussion of how to achieve these conditions of mutual involvement, participation and collaboration are very similar to the discussions about how to achieve ‘community development’. For example, the more disempowered you are, the less hope you may have about either the value of participating or even the chances of something good coming out of it. If you are radically disempowered you may not even be able to envisage something better, when even a vague or indistinct vision is a prerequisite for pursuing one at all.

Nevertheless, members of critical reference groups who have problematized a situation are in the most strategic position to work on its improvement. Participatory action research, in its most-developed form, works to assist critical reference groups - and those who share their perspective - pursue their inquiries, by themselves and for themselves, as a community-of-interest. The role of ‘outsiders’ or those who are not members of critical reference groups changes radically. Rather than operating as the independent expert determiner of the truth-of-the-situation (with critical reference groups assisting the researcher in their pursuit of The Truth), the ‘researcher’ becomes a facilitator of or an assistant to the critical reference group’s own pursuit of their truth (or truths).

• Stakeholders other than the researcher/s and the critical reference group (and whether interested or hostile)
  These typically participate only at the outset: perhaps to convene a Committee or allocate a research brief or contribute funds, or just at the end: to receive a research report or hear of its findings. The pitfalls and wastage that can be associated with this level of participation are numerous. A few possible results include:
  • manipulation of the research process ‘off stage’ (by powerful parties who never participated in a democratic process around a table with all other parties), and possible ultimate resistance by other parties when their participation proves to be pointless;
  • rejection of a report by some or all because they simply never went through the same learning process as did the researcher/s and the critical reference group and never reached the same conclusions;
  • frustration with a process that does not reflect their realities;
  • inability to see what are the practical consequences of a set of findings or recommendations.

Service providers can specially benefit from full participation so that the link between their ‘theory’ (why they do what they do) is in closer connection with their ‘practice’ (what they actually do). Indeed, in much action research in Western countries, the primary participants are service-providers who work in small circles, examining their practice and trying out alternative ways of working. For the value of this to be maximized, participation needs to be organized around the interests of the critical reference group or driven by a critical reference group perspective, or else the research can risk becoming sidetracked. 16

The Researched

• This may typically be the critical reference group, along with some service-providers or their representatives. However, again I have found that the more there is active participation the greater the chances of maximizing both the accuracy and meaningfulness of all contributions, and also the sharing of perceptions and of emerging understandings about the value of what new actions should next be taken.Research which involves the collaboration of people, rarely is sustained without a shared purpose, and this ‘shared purpose’ stems from what understandings people have together developed about what is of value. If understanding is not for ‘its own sake’, but directed towards understanding something ‘in order to…’, then the point of purposeful inquiry is action. As pointed out before, where the categories ‘the researched’ and ‘the researchers’ and ‘the researched for’ begin to become less distinct, this collaboration can become more cohesive.

  What kind of action is for the parties to decide - focused by the perspective of the critical reference group. As pointed out earlier, that new action might be the reproduction of the same old action as was taken previously if it involves researchers who believe they neither are contributing (nor want to contribute) to change. This is research which may carefully reproduce the status quo. Other research, which is self-conscious about why it asked the questions it does, wishes instead to head towards a different and improved state of affairs.

What Participatory Action Research is - and is not!
Participatory action research is a term that brings together a set of assumptions underlying ‘new paradigm’ science and in contrast to those of traditional or ‘old paradigm’ science. These new assumptions underline the importance of social and collective processes in reaching conclusions about ‘what is the case’, and what the implications are for change which is deemed useful by those whose problematic situation led to the research in the first place.
In ‘real life’, actual researchers often straddle (more or less uncomfortably) the two paradigms, but the paradigms themselves are coherent bodies of thought that are not theoretically commensurable. But a paradigm addresses the unsolved problems of the previous paradigm. So while positivism arose to bring certainty and verifiability to a world construed as ‘irrational’, post positivism addresses the inability to handle enormous complexity in large, cybernetic, self-changing human systems. If conventional science wanted to give a group of people the power to determine ‘truth’ for and on behalf of others, the new science arose from a world of multiple and competing versions of truth and reality as a way of assisting people both come to the truth of their own reality, and also to embrace that of others.
The urgency of such mutual understanding is to be found in the topics selected by PAR practitioners - mostly concerned with difficult situations of social change, the loss of ways to meet human needs, the rise of anxieties and fears as we become strangers to each other, and the threat of dissolution into violence and alienation.
On such big fronts, participatory action research proceeds modestly, but it does proceed! For all these reasons participatory action research is not just research which we hope will be followed by action! It is action which is researched, changed and re-researched, within the research process by participants. Nor is it simply an exotic variant of consultation. Instead, it aims to be active co-research, by and for those to be helped. Nor can it be used by one group of people to get another group of people to do what is thought best for them - whether that is to implement a central policy or an organizational or service change. Instead it tries to be a genuinely democratic or non-coercive process whereby those to be helped, determine the purposes and outcomes of their own inquiry. Paradoxically it is quite close to a common-sense way of ‘learning by doing’. But at the same time it is very hard to achieve the ideal conditions for putting it fully into practice.
Essentially participatory action research is research which involves all relevant parties in actively examining together current action (which they experience as problematic) in order to change and improve it. They do this by critically reflecting on the historical, political, cultural, economic, geographic and other contexts which make sense of it.
‘Current problematic action’ may range from the trivial to the life-threatening. Much participatory action research lies between these ends of the scale, and typically involves yourself; those who share your concerns, experiences and interests; others suffering from the problematic situation; others trying to assist it to change; and those who oversee the material resources needed to underpin the change effort (such as funds, people, salaries, services, office resources, etc.). Bringing these parties together, and absorbing new ones as the action research effort proceeds to unfold and implicate parties further afield, is not merely a side issue of ‘entry to the field’ but a central focus for achieving understanding and change. As well, action research is not research which sees these as ‘contaminating’ processes which ‘bias’ the scientific effort, nor does it have a problem with the ‘researcher/s’ identifying with ‘the researched’ and the ‘researched for’, - seeing this rather as essential to the gaining of engaged understanding.

What ‘drives’ participatory action research, like any research, is our ‘need to know’ in order to bring about desired change. We often shorthand term this our ‘values’ - which are our precious images of valued states or ways of being. Rather than seeing this holding-of-values as subjective and potentially a source of bias, the strength of the values we hold will determine the power and direction of our research efforts. Two key additional factors which will shape what we do is the strength of our imaginations (to theorize more creatively, deeply and imaginatively) and our skepticism (to keep our theory closely in relationship to the practices we are observing). Like any other research, the critical moment is that of ‘discovery’ or rather: ‘invention’ of a different and better way of seeing and understanding our realities. The old adage about science being 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration may hold true enough! The hard sweat and toil comprises the long hours of talking and thinking and sharing the results of our ‘fieldwork’ with one another. The moment of inspired thinking is when collective values are expressed in a new way of connecting ideas or a new way of ‘naming’ the world, that advances the collective situation of participants.