and co-evolving and that it generates new possibilities.
In the following, we will present our proposed framework for Collaborative Action Research from a social constructionist stance with a set of action-oriented principles. This framework and the principles are to be seen as resources rather than as a recipe for conducting Collaborative Action Research.
Framework of Collaborative Action Research
This proposed framework, with a set of ideas and principles, is an ever-evolving process with persons who are interested in co-constructing CAR together with us. We suggest the ideas and principles as context markers and borrow from McNamee's (2004) ideas on conversational resources and research as a relational practice (2014) for persons and communities interested in CAR. This also means that the principles are part of not a linear but a circular and iterative process. We will now turn to the framework of Collaborative Action Research: co-constructing the research agenda and research process, relational capacity building, negotiating actions and experiments, and co-constructing knowledge and practices.
Co-Constructing the Research Agenda and Research Process
The first principle is co-constructing the research agenda and the research process by preparing the relational context (McNamee, 2009). Central for this is collaboration. At the core of these collaborative relationships are people's competence and capability to listen, take each other seriously, and respect the perspectives of others concerning both the relationship and the partnership in which they are involved (Strong et al., 2011). Making collaboration useful, Collaborative Action Research requires a free flow of information and the sharing of feedback among all parties so that they are on track with the changing intentions that often arise (Sundet, 2011). In the research literature which focuses on services and practices that keep the participants at the center of decision making, a number of essential principles are espoused. These include working with sometimes competing beliefs, values and priorities; power and power balancing; engagement strategies; consistency of care delivery; relationship competencies; role blurring; and negotiated decision-making (Ness et al., 2014; Strong et al., 2011).
In concrete terms, this principle involves getting to know each other as co-participants in the research, both personally and professionally, and getting to know people's interests, dreams and agendas – what do we all want to be achieved by doing this research project together. This involves what McNamee (2015) calls relational ethics, which means being attentive to the process of relating; this involves co-constructing trust in both persons and the research process.
When working with social change and social justice, one also needs to co-construct knowledge about the living conditions where co-researchers live their everyday lives. This means mapping and exploring the contextual and cultural knowledge about the everyday life of the community together with the co-researchers.
Another important topic is negotiating power relations. This means working in ways that enable the research to be truly collaborative. This requires the authentic engagement of all the co-researchers in equally voicing and influencing shared decision making, which involves listening to multiple views and together finding ways to make the decision-making process transparent and collaborative, not something that those with the most power (i.e., researchers) own (Heron, 1996).
Based on these above-mentioned topics, after becoming familiar with the people (i.e., their backgrounds, living conditions, interests, social context) and negotiating the power relations that affect the process of collaboration, the next principle is then to negotiate shared purposes and research questions and prepare the research process. This also involves the need to take into account in the conversation what the participants would like to use as data for the process of co-constructing the knowledge that may be disseminated.
Another point is related to research ethics. It is important to consider the ways of conceptualizing ethical issues in terms of an approach that Banks et al. (2013) call ‘everyday ethics’, which emphasizes the situated nature of ethics, with a focus on the qualities of character and the responsibilities attached to particular relationships (as opposed to the articulation and implementation of abstract principles and rules). Everyday ethics is the daily practice of negotiating the ethical issues and challenges that arise through the life of CAR projects. Thus, the ‘ethical’ is present in ways of being and acting as well as in relationships, emotions and conduct. The key qualities of a researcher include ethical sensitivity (the capacity to see the ethically salient features of situations) and relational virtues, such as trustworthiness (reliability and not disappointing others) (Banks et al., 2013). This is similar to what McNamee and Gergen (1999) call ‘relational responsibility’ and ‘relational ethics’ and what Swim et al. (2001) call ‘process ethics’.
Relational Capacity Building
As we mentioned in the introduction, we see CAR as a process of relational capacity building. Capacity building in this regard is defined as activities that strengthen the relationships, knowledge, abilities and resources of individual communities and that improve institutional and social structures and processes so that organizations and communities can meet their goals in a sustainable way (Brix et al., 2020; McNamee and Hosking, 2012). This is linked to the capabilities approach, where the focus is on the capabilities that all people need to flourish, i.e., the capability to work/learn, to be healthy, to be part of a community, and to nurture relationships within the family and beyond (Cottam, 2018).
Here, we suggest ideas such as how co-researchers can work together to co-identify assets and resources in people and relationships in environments such as buildings, meeting places and green spaces. Something that often happens in the process of co-identifying assets and resources, which we suggest should be emphasized, is that one comes to know many people. Once one comes to know these assets, one can connect people and resources together, which creates relationships and communities. These relationships and communities will then be mobilized in this process, which ultimately creates changes within the area of research interest and beyond.
As part of the process, one will surely experience chaos and uncertainty. This refers more to an attitude rather than to a procedure to invite interdependence between chaos and order in a developing inquiry. This attitude enables the participants to avoid premature closure on their reflections and actions while helping them overcome feelings of confusion, uncertainty, ambiguity, disorder and tension as an asset. Since uncertainty accompanies chaos, awareness of relational dynamics may be helpful in guiding the Collaborative Action Research process. Reason (1999, p. 213) argues that CAR ‘is sometimes about throwing all caution to the winds in a wild experiment. There can be no guarantee that chaos will occur; certainly, one cannot plan it’. An important validity issue for balancing chaos and order is to be prepared for chaos and then to tolerate it and not let anxiety press for a premature order, while waiting for a sense of creative resolution.
Negotiating Actions and Reflections
Another aspect of CAR is what kind(s) of actions it is decided to experiment with. As CAR is about changing and improving conditions and practices during a research process, it is important to create a research environment where it is acceptable to try and fail. This involves a process of negotiating what actions will be tried together, when and by whom – and what kind of process the co-researchers want to have to generate data for documenting the changes and improvements being made in the community. One way of doing so is by co-constructing cycles of action and reflections.
The purpose of research cycling is to ensure that the research outcomes are well grounded for the participants involved in the focus of the inquiry. This means that co-researchers repeatedly explore emerging concepts for ideas that they believe should be included or omitted. By doing so, ideas and concepts may develop and improve through a co-constructed cycling
