Co-constructing Knowledge and Practices
It is important that CAR projects involve changes and improvements that are useful for local contexts. However, we will argue that it is important that other local communities, policy makers, practitioners and researchers come to know how CAR projects are being conducted and that they disseminate the results. When constructing knowledge from CAR projects, we will emphasize the importance of co-analyzing the chosen data and the co-writing and co-presenting of results, as all aspects of research are collaborative.
For this process, we find the following framework useful. Banks et al. (2017, pp. 543–544) developed three types of impact of action research that they call co-impacts. These types can help researchers organize and map out the different aspects of knowledge construction relevant to many contexts:
Participatory impact refers to changes within researchers and core partner organizations, which happen as a result of their involvement in the research process. This may entail learning research skills, developing new insights and understandings that can be used in daily life or in community action, developing confidence, and feeling empowered or passionate about a cause.
Collaborative impact is based on the take-up and use of the findings of CAR by individuals and organizations to change practice and policy and influence attitudes and culture. This may include impact on the individuals and organizations involved in the project, as well as on outside individuals and organizations. In participatory research, the impact is generated by individuals and organizations working together. Hence, the authors call this ‘collaborative impact’ and note that it is more findings-based than ‘participatory impact’, which emphasizes process.
Collective impact involves a deliberate strategy on the part of the research partners (and sometimes others) to achieve a specific, targeted change in practice and/or policy-based issues highlighted via the research. The concept of ‘collective impact’ is currently a hot topic but is used less in relation to research and more in the context of multiple organizations working together strategically to achieve social change, where interventions are co-designed to address ‘wicked’ (intractable) issues, such as poverty or persistently low educational outcomes for children in a neighborhood.
In our experience, co-constructing knowledge and practices by focusing on the impacts that they make sustains results and supports the capabilities of communities to continue making changes and improvements for the common good.
Concluding Remarks
Try to see it my way…
While you see it your way…
We can work it out,
We can work it out
The Beatles
In this chapter, we have outlined a framework for CAR, seeking social justice, democratic innovation and social change for the common good. The world is continuously facing complex problems and challenges that demand joint action from the whole of society and increased citizen participation. As made explicit by SDG # 17, collaboration is key for sustainable development. By using CAR, we address what Gergen (2014) has called for, that is, research as ‘future-forming’, to build capabilities and capacities within people, organizations and communities by starting with people and their everyday lives. We have argued for and outlined some principles of CAR as an important approach to focus on people's human rights, sustainable development and the conditions for creating dignity and human flourishing in present and future constructions of our social worlds. As Gergen et al. (2001, p. 681) ask: ‘Perhaps the major challenge for the 21st century is how we shall manage to live together on the globe. What resources are available to us in confronting this challenge?’ CAR is certainly not the only answer to this question. However, we believe, it could serve as a vital part in the future of forming a world of people pursuing the common good – together.
References
Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Carter, K., Graham, H., Hayward, P., Henry, A., Holland, T., Holmes, C., Lee, A., McNulty, A., Moore, N., Nayling, N., Stokoe, A., and Strachan, A. (2013). Everyday Ethics in Community-based Participatory Research. Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 263–277.
Banks, S., Herrington, T., and Carter, K. (2017). Pathways to Co-impact: Action research and community organizing. Educational Action Research, 25(4), 541–559.
Bradbury, H. (2015). The Sage Handbook Action Research (3rd edition). London: Sage.
Brandsen, T., Verschuere, B., and Steen, T. (2018). Co-Production and Co-Creation Engaging Citizens in Public Services. New York: Routledge.
Bray, J. N., Lee, J., Smith, L. L., and Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative Inquiry in Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brix, J., Krogstrup, H. K., and Mortensen, N. M. (2020). Evaluating the Outcomes of Co-production in Local Government. Local Government Studies, 46(2), 169–185.
Brown, L.D. and Tandon, R. (1983). Ideology and Political Economy in Inquiry: Action research and participatory research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(3), 277–294.
Cottam, H. (2018). Radical Help. London: Virago.
Davidson, L., Ridgway, P., Wieland, M., and O'Connell, M. (2009). A capabilities approach to mental health transformation: A conceptual framework for the recovery era. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 28(2), 35–46.
Desai, M. U., Bellamy, C., Guy, K., Costa, M., O'Connell, M. J., and Davidson, L. (2019). ‘If You Want to Know About the Book, Ask the Author’: Enhancing community engagement through participatory research in clinical mental health settings. Behavioral Medicine, 45(2), 177–187.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.
Diggs, B. J. (1973). The Common Good as Reason for Political Action. Ethics, 83(4), 283–293.
Dréze, J. and Sen, A. (2002). India: Development and participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fals-Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (Action) Research in Social Theory: Origins and challenges. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 27–37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gergen, K. J. (1982). Toward a Transformation in Social Knowledge. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The Social Constructionist Movement in Modern Psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and Relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational Being: Beyond self and community. New York: Oxford.
Gergen, K. J. (2014). From Mirroring to World-Making: Research as future-forming. The Journal of Social Behaviour, 45(3), 287–310.
Gergen, K. J. (2020). Learning New Ideas and Practices together through Relational Action Research. In L. Hersted, S. Frimann, and O. Ness (Eds.), Action Research in a Relational View: Dialogue, reflexivity, power and ethics (pp. xii–xv). London: Routledge.
Gergen, K. J. and Gergen, M. (2015). Social Construction and
