- 17-4-228-1-10-20170613.pdf (114k)
Cappelen Damm Akademisk
In classic action research, democratization through broad participation in work organizations’ development work has been thought to take care of minorities and underrepresented groups (Gustavsen et al. 2010). This so-called (gender) neutral perspective has been criticized (Macguire 2001; Marshall 2001; Amble & Foss 2005; Gunnarsson 2006; Vagle & M.ller 2014). Still, there is little research that demonstrates how action research can fulfil both the democratizing and the feminist project, in practice. But there are exceptions (Beinum 2000; Berge & Ve 2000). In this article, the approach is to display how this double perspective on gender and class can be played out in practice. What challenges does this ‘double scope’ provide? And how can this possibly be a critical perspective that brings action research further? The last topic will be discussed in the concluding part. Theoretically, the article is based on academic concepts such as gender and intersectionality (Ellings.ter & Solheim 2002; Egeland & Gressg.rd 2008; Gunnarsson 2006). Empirically we use fieldwork from our dissertations (Amble 2012; Vagle & M.ller 2014) as an illustration, case or demonstration experiment (Herbst 1993). This is the empirical foundation of our paper whose purpose is to show how we have done this in practice. Our experience is to look for boundaries that limit, i.e. perforating borders and control through an emancipatory perspective, and being sensitive to the different groups in the workplace. This is the key to action research that incorporates what we call «a double scope in AR-practice».
Permanent URL (for citation purposes)