Blogs Research In Extension

BLOG – 87: Action Research – A Professional Development Approach for Students and Teachers

Agricultural extension professionals lag behind in conducting innovative research and generating new knowledge, mainly because of their dependence on conventional research methods. In this blog, Dr Sagar Wadkar, Prof. Birendra Kumar, and Dr P Sethuraman Sivakumar highlight the need for promoting action research in extension –as a process to build the empirically-based research capacity of students and teachers– along with a strategy to create and maintain positive social, economic and environmental change.


Changing the context of research – what is and what ought to be

Farmers in developing countries face several new challenges. These include dealing with uncertain markets and weather, declining land and water availability and their deterioration, and increasing cost of inputs compared to declining income from farming. Extension professionals need to be more realistic and technically competent to address many of these issues. Extension professionals need an empathetic lens to see and understand the target clientele/community better. They should have the ability to analyse a particular issue or field situation from a historical, political, socio-cultural and economic point of view. However, the existing curricula in general and research methodology courses in particular, offer a theoretical orientation for doing research. We need pragmatic orientation to develop this competency for understanding communities, their dynamics and environment.

The extension research was initiated under the influence of a diffusionist approach with emphasis on ‘why don’t’ they adopt innovation, and ‘who’ adopts and ‘why’, finding the critical variables that fuelled transfer of technology approach. However, the Master’s and Doctoral researches in extension are discipline-focused, oriented towards knowledge acquisition in aspects related to extension rather than skills development and field application/ intervention. Research methodology courses currently orient extension students on scientific ways of conducting research. They are taught scientific methods of problem formulation, collecting data, analysing it and reporting. Accordingly, they do research, collect data and analyse it in ways that enable them to describe situations as they exist and/or report impact of any intervention, package of practices, etc., and come up with a ‘list of recommendations’ for others to implement. This process develops their competency in doing research, but they cannot change field situations and thus produce reports that have minimal application in the field. Adversely it also does not set them apart from other students doing similar academic studies. Sivakumar and Sulaiman (2015) observed that currently extension research in India is not providing any substantiative input for extension policy or in generating good practice of extension. Due to lack of practical significance and stagnation in theory development, extension research is often criticized by other agricultural disciplines as a ‘non-performing discipline’ (Sivakumar 2015).

Therefore for universities to be more consistent with stated institutional mandates, which emphasise problem solving for communities and national development, empirical research needs to be balanced through the integration of more development-oriented and participatory action research that enable them to generate empirical data, which further can be used to solve farmers’ problems. The committee on doubling farmers’ income (MoA&FW 2017) has also suggested identifying the location-specific problems of farmers, and accordingly the research priorities of post-graduate and doctoral scholars must be guided. Thus, there is a need for application of action-oriented methodologies to make extension research more field-oriented, problem-focused and ethically satisfying.

Action research

Action Research (AR) is a process of action inquiry that follows a cycle in which one improves practice by systematically oscillating between taking actions in the field of practice, and inquiring into it. The basic action inquiry cycle is about planning for improvement in the practice, acting to implement the planned improvement, monitoring and describing the effects of the action, and then evaluating the outcomes of the action (Tripp 2005). Thus, it is carried out for people, with people and by people, and begins with a systematic investigation of the problem in order to formulate the right questions based on interactions with stakeholders. Unlike academic research, it calls for more engagement with the field. Action is designed to solve problems being faced, and research verifies the efficacy of the action.

It is often considered as social research for social change, which demonstrates working towards a resolution of the impetus for action with the reflective process of inquiry and knowledge generation, so as to generate new practices (Somekh and Zeichner 2009).A more succinct definition of AR is:

“…aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to further the goals of social science simultaneously. Thus, there is a dual commitment in action research to study a system and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in changing it in what is together regarded as a desirable direction. Accomplishing this twin goal requires the active collaboration of researcher and farmers, and thus it stresses the importance of co-learning as a primary aspect of the research process.” (Thomas et al. 1986).

This approach was found to be effective in helping and empowering farmers, especially when educational institutions, non-governmental organisations, and farmers work together. Kurt Lewin, who first pioneered the action research concept (Box 1), viewed it as a cyclical, dynamic, and collaborative process; and since then action research and its variations have been adopted in a variety of disciplines, including education, psychology, community health sciences, and more recently in rural development.

Box 1. Origin of action research
As per evolution, four main streams emerged– traditional, contextural, radical, and educational action
research (O’Brien 2001).

  • Kurt Lewin and Traditional Action Research
    A German social and experimental psychologist, Lewin coined the term AR4
    and characterized AR as an alternative to the norms of decontextualized research. Instead of focusing on surveys and statistical methods, action research’s purpose is to improve social formations by involving participants in a cyclical process of fact finding, planning, exploratory action, and evaluation. Lewin has introduced four types of AR – Diagnostic (to identify a problem and help generate proposed solutions that would be acceptable to those involved in an existing problem situation (people involved in this AR may not themselves be directly affected by the problem); Participant (those affected by a problem are involved from the beginning in finding a solution. This type of AR, tends to have only limited local application and limited
    generalizability); Empirical (involves accumulating and recording day-to-day lived experiences within groups in order to build generalizable knowledge);and Experimental (using controls to test hypotheses in quasi-experimental conditions. Of all the varieties of AR, this AR has the greatest potential for the advancement of scientific knowledge; however, it is the most difficult form of AR to carry out successfully). Further he conceptualized all kinds of social change as a three-step process: preliminary diagnosis & data gathering (unfreezing) → action planning and co-learning (changing) → integration of desired condition in existing structure (refreezing).
  • Eric Trist and Contextural Action Research
    A social psychiatrist engaged in applied social research, Trist tended to focus more on large-scale, multiorganizational problems, which led to the founding of contextural action research, also referred to as
    ‘action learning’. It entails reconstituting the structural relations among actors in a social environment, where all concerned parties and stakeholders participate so as to understand the working of the whole.
  • Paulo Freire and Radical Action Research
    Freire,a Brazilian educator and philosopher, pioneered the Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology, a subset of radical action research, which has a strong focus on emancipation and the overcoming of power imbalances. This method grew out of his critical pedagogy and emancipating theology ideas. He further emphasized the significance of critical consciousness for social change  where oppressed groups can take up their own action for their self-upliftment. The two branches of this school are PAR and Feminist Action Research.
  • John Dewey and Educational Action Research
    An American educational philosopher, John Dewey believed that development practitioners, and professional educators, should engage in solving community problems by professional development, curriculum development, empowerment and action learning. Dewey’s problem solving model (known as reflective thinking) is popular and he affirms that in practice, educational action research influences the quality enhancement of teaching and learning. This evolved into the living theory approach – to justify the practitioners’ educational influences in their own learning by asking “How am I improving what I am doing?” (Whitehead 1989; McNiff 2002).

How is it different from traditional research?

AR emphasises problem solving through ‘learning by doing’. It focuses on practice of enquiry through concurrent activities. But it is not simply a problem-solving activity. There is dual commitment in action research – to study a system and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in changing it, in what is together regarded as a desirable direction. Several attributes separate action research from other types of research. Firstly, it focuses on turning the people involved into researchers too. Secondly, it has a social dimension. The research takes place in real world situations and aims to solve real problems. Thirdly, the initiating researchers make no attempt to remain objective, but openly acknowledge their bias to the other participants. Owing to these attributes and other principles it is not possible to place action research in a positive paradigm, especially since the paradigm is based on objective reality and relies heavily on quantitative measures. Action research shows a number of perspectives within the interpretive paradigm. Though this paradigm relies on qualitative measurement, it still retains the ideals of researcher objectivity and researcher as passive collector and expert interpreter of data. Therefore, it is also not the right paradigm for action research. Affiliation of action research lies with the paradigm of praxis. Praxis is the art of working upon the conditions one faces in order to change them. Knowledge is derived from practice and practice informed by knowledge in an on-going process – this is a cornerstone of action research. It also rejects the notion of researcher neutrality, recognizing that the most active researcher is often one who has most at stake in resolving a problematic situation. Thus AR employs recognised research techniques to inform the action taken to improve practice, requires action in the fields of both practice and research, so to a greater or lesser extent, it will have characteristics of both routine practice and scientific research. The following table shows how action research stands in relation to some of the differences between these two (Table 1).

The process of action research 

Extension researches are applied in nature, meaning that the findings need to be useful for changing behaviour of the clientele group. However, in reality the methods used are no different from the other social research methods except that the problems are field-oriented mostly. Inclusions of action research in education and management have the logic of relevance and applicability. It is a process to conduct research in a natural setting, and learns from the findings that go on to improve the situation. Here action and research go hand in hand. Research is conducted to solve a problem being encountered by the practitioners and then the researcher takes efforts to understand and conceptualize the problem and form hypothesis for alternatives. Then s/he takes actions systematically to solve the problem. Along the way s/he also collects data to measure the impact of the action. It is a cyclic process of action and reflection. The best part of the research is its focus on applicability of the solutions. It is so different from academic research that many academicians may refuse to accept it as research, but the relevance of the methodology may motivate them to use it to learn from everyday action and practice. Thus, it deals with two things: action (what you do) and research (how you learn about and explain what you do). The action aspect of action research is about improving practice. The research aspect is about creating knowledge about practice. The knowledge created is your knowledge of your practice (McNiff and Whitehead 2010). A few examples of conventional extension research questions and action research questions are displayed in Table 2.

However, action research is very challenging and difficult to do. Normally academics accustomed to conventional data-based research may find the whole exercise unpalatable and unresearch-like due to the uncertainties regarding conceiving, conducting, reporting and publishing such research.

Various scholars have explained action research as emancipatory research, collaborative inquiry, and action inquiry, but all are variations on a theme. There are many models and guidelines for engaging in the action research methodology (Box 2). Some of the different developments of the basic action inquiry process include: action research (Lewin 1946), action learning (Revons 1971), reflective practice (Schon 1983), action design (Argrys 1985), experiential learning (Kolb 1984), the PDCA cycle (Deming 1986), PLA, PAR, PAD, PALM, PRA, etc. (Chambers 1983), deliberative practice (McCutcheon1988), praxis research (Whyte 1964; 1991), appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider and Shrevasteva 1987), diagnostic practice (generic in medicine, remedial teaching, etc.), action
evaluation (Rothman and Dosik 1999), soft systems methodology (Checkland and Holwell 1998), transformational learning (Marquardt 1999), as a helix (Stringer 2008), and e ‘learning by doing’ (O’Brien 1998).These models are developed and customized to particular uses, practices, participants, and situations, which have different outcomes that are likely to be reported in different ways to various audiences.

Box 2. Models of Action Research

Various models that can be used to conduct action research. These are as follows:

  • Stephen Kemmis (1982): a basic model – plan, action, observe, and reflect;
  • Gerald Susman (1983): a circular model – diagnose, action plan, take action, evaluate, and specify
  • Eric Trist and Fred Emery (1959): a search conference – collaborative group model – pre-conference,
    group work 1 (scanning the issue), group work 2 (desired future), group work 3 (options for change),
    presentation plenary after each group work and post conference;
  • Mertler and Charles (2011): a cyclical and iterative model –
  • Planning stage: Identifying and limiting the topic; gathering information; reviewing related
    literature; developing a research plan;
  • Acting stage: Collecting data; analysing data;
  • Developing stage: Developing an action plan;
  • Reflecting stage: sharing and communicating results; reflecting on the process.

Role of the action researcher

The role of a researcher in action research is to produce a mutually agreeable outcome for all participants. To accomplish this he may play different roles at various stages of the process. These are planner, leader, catalyser, facilitator, teacher, designer, listener, observer, synthesizer and reporter. The main role, however, is to nurture local leaders to the point where they can take responsibility for the process. In many action research situations, the researchers’ role is primarily to take the time to facilitate dialogue and foster reflective analysis among the participants, provide them with periodic reports, and write a final report when the researchers’ involvement has ended.

Implication of AR in agriculture and rural development

It is a well-recognised fact that there is weak coordination and linkage between research, education, extension, and farmers. Extension researchers are not aware of field challenges and problems, therefore their research lacks in relevance, offers limited information and very little knowledge sharing between stakeholders. On the other hand, (participatory) action research enables bridging of these gaps and collaborates with farmers in key activities including technology selection, dissemination, evaluation (Case Study 1), value-chain analysis (Case Study 2),and convergence of schemes and programmes for its effective implementation (Case Study 3),thereby breaking the
traditional one-way relationship and fostering shared visions and actions among stakeholders.

Case Studies

  1. Linking research institute with post offices for dissemination of agricultural technologies: An action research project

    The aim of this action research project conducted by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), 
    New Delhi, was to establish linkage with Post Offices for dissemination of agricultural technology and package of practices. In the first phase of the study, an exploratory and descriptive study was conducted on the possibility of establishing linkages with post office in dissemination of IARI technology. During the course of this process the post offices and their personnel at district, block, and villages levels in Sitapur district of Uttar Pradesh were contacted, and the trends in post office workings in the last 10 years was assessed. In Phase 2, suitable crops and their varieties were identified and disseminated through the postal network; then performance was assessed. Performance of these crops was assessed in terms of area coverage, yield obtained, total quality of
    produce generated for further use, and their economics for high volume-high value and low volumehigh
    value crops. Post office personnel’s and farmers’ perceptions (n=200) were ascertained and correlated to see the degree of convergence. As a result, the AR team including post office personnel, conclusively decided to disseminate IARI’s quality seed and related package of practices through Post Offices. 
     In 2011–12 Rabi season, 1014 farmers under seven post offices in two blocks, namely Sidhauli and Kasmanda, covering 30 villages were reached through this approach. It was observed that more than 90% of the farmers received the seed of wheat, paddy, pigeonpea, bajra (pearl millet), mustard, bottle gourd, pumpkin, and okra crops sent through post offices within 4–6 days of despatch from IARI. At the evaluation stage, a survey was conducted with certain identified farmers to analyse their feedback regarding IARI seeds, seed despatch mechanism and related issues. The performance of IARI crop variety was found superior as compared to prevailing popular varieties. Farmers, as well as village post office personnel, found this approach very effective and a successful means for making the improved agricultural technologies available in the rural areas in fairly less time and cost. In the final stage, the capacity building of farmers and post office personnel was done so as to raise their level of agricultural knowledge; and cost sharing for high volume crops further helped to improve the sustainability dimension of this approach. This AR helped to generate a new empirical model of transfer of technology through post-offices, and helps to strengthen backward linkages with research institutes. Agriculture and rural development is based on local resources, bio-physical properties, and more importantly, the capabilities of people as key resources. AR helps to utilise these local resources and
    capabilities and offers a practical approach to innovation and support, and facilitates change processes concerning issues of sustainability of livelihoods. These aspects are highlighted in Case Study 2 (below).
  2. Improving income for walnut growers in Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir, through better
    marketing linkages and value addition at the source

    Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) State contributes almost 98% of the total walnut production in India. In the state, Kishtwar district is the major contributor, and offers huge potential for high incomes to farmers. However, factors such as a large number of middlemen, lack of market information and connectivity, and low value addition at source have prevented the benefits of these endowments from reaching the actual growers of this region. Farmers lost up to 38% of their potential income in the year 2013-14. In this backdrop, action research was undertaken with the focused objective of increasing per capita income of walnut growers through effective post-harvest management. The study was divided into three major parts. In part 1asituation analysis was carried out to understand the context and identification of the problem. This was performed by narrowing it down to the commodity–Walnuts, then value chain analysis and the opportunity therein; and finally identification of villages for which a rank-based ordinal approach was adopted, then the Panchayat with the top
    score was selected based on quality and quantity of walnuts, and ratio of small farmers to large farmers.
    In the second stage, analysis of the existing walnut-marketing channel was assessed; walnut growers were sensitised and mobilised towards post-harvest management, their capacity built to undertake different functional roles (as monitors, harvesters, collectors, processors and transporters) for primary processing at the source, and finally the per capita gain in income was calculated and revealed, and the process documented. As a result, a village, ‘Sigdi’, was identified for the study. The potential of gain from the last selling prices of producers per kg was found to be 31%for shelled walnuts and 47% for kernels. Therefore it was decided to have manual cracking of walnut at household level, then at district level grading, segregation, quality inspection and packing was done, and finally transportation of packaged kernels and shelled walnut to the local and national market. All these efforts resulted in: dissolution of the information barrier, increased value due to processing, and higher offer prices in the new market. Consequently the average earning for 297 households of the village increased by 28% in addition to perceivable improvement in the status of women. The action research approach adopted by the team (growers, panchayat representatives, and district officials) and convergence displayed by the various government functionaries truly reflect the essentials of a successful intervention. This approach helps to organise farmers so as to strengthen their organizational and entrepreneurial capacities. It was also observed that in the absence of this foundational phase, farmers will not develop the necessary ability to function as genuine partners in value-chain analysis.(Source: Sharma 2017)Action research engages the researcher in a collective action approach and enables them to implement the programmes and schemes efficiently and thus develop new solutions that can change existing practices. They can moreover then test the feasibility and features of these new solutions, innovations, products, services, etc. (Case Study 3)
  3. Improving efficiency of skill development schemes: Action research in Naxal-affected
    Narayanpur district of Chhattisgarh The aim of this AR was to improve the efficiency of the skill development scheme in order to provide suitable livelihood opportunities to prospective youth. This study analysed the three major skill development programs – Mukhya Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gramin Kaushal Yojana and; Rural Self Employment Institute– implemented in Narayanpur district under the aegis of the Chhattisgarh Skill Development Authority. The study divided into four major parts: a) Situation analysis to assess skill demand was conducted through a survey to understand the employment status in the district and demand for skill courses among the potential youth (age group of 14 – 45 years); b) Skill gap analysis to ascertain prospective employment opportunities in the district and State were mapped with the help of local administration, local employers, entrepreneurs, government officials, and upcoming industries in the district; c) Content analysis of selected schemes were carried out to understand the provisions under each scheme; and d) accordingly a perspective plan for the effective implementation of these schemes was prepared and executed. The AR team
    has a proactive role in all phases of the AR process, comprising District Skill Development Authority
    and its enabling agencies, 35 anganwadi sevikas, 52 saksharata preraks, 38 vocational training
    providers, 26 private employers within the district, all facilitated by a Rural Development Fellow as
    the Researcher. Thus it is suggested that there is need for convergence of the relevant schemes at the
    district level for its effective implementation. Any scheme or program should not be implemented as
    a standalone plan, but it should be part of a larger framework that includes education, people’s
    development, livelihood security, employment generation and socio-economic integration of society,
    for its effective implementation.
    (Source: Patki 2017)

Potential of AR in extension

Action research has immense potential in extension. In general, most research problems in extension
are complex in nature, calling for multi-disciplinary collaborative action. As extension research strives
to advance knowledge, one has to master the skill while solving the problem. A few examples of
action research in extension science are shown in Table 3.


A few research papers on action research 

The following research papers examined action research approaches on various aspects related to agriculture; and then were published in highly-rated and peer-reviewed international journals.

Distance education

  • Nunes JMB and McPherson MA. (2003.) An action research model for the management of
    change in continuing professional distance education. Innovations in Teaching and Learning
    in Information and Computer Sciences (ITALICS), 2(1). (Citescore2017- 0.27).
  • McPherson MA and Nunes JMB.(2002.) Supporting educational management through action
    research. The International Journal of Educational Management 16(6):300-308.
    (CiteScore 2017:1.16).
  • Forster Mand Washington E. (2000.) A model for developing and managing distance
    education programs using interactive video technology. Journal of Social Work Education
    36(1):147-158. (Thompson Reuters Impact Factor: 1.000).
  • Nunes JMB and McPherson MA. (2003.) Action research in continuing professional
    development. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19:429–437. (Thompson Reuters
    Impact Factor:1.859)

Value chain analysis and intervention

  • Murshed-e-Jahan K, Ali H, Upraity V, and Gurung S. (2018.)Making sense of the market: Assessing the participatory market chain approach to aquaculture value chain development in Nepal and Bangladesh. Aquaculture 493(1):395-405. (Thompson Reuters Impact Factor: 2.710; Cite Score: 3.05)
  • Thiele G, Devaux A, Reinoso H, Pico H, Montesdeoca F, Pumisacho M, Andrade-Piedra J, Velasco C, Flores P, Esprella R, Thomann A, Manrique K and Horton D. (2011.) Multistakeholder platforms for linking small farmers to value chains: evidence from the Andes. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9(3):423-433. (Thompson Reuters Impact Factor: 2.702)
  • Lie Helene, Rich Karl M, Burkart Stefan. (2017.) Participatory system dynamics modelling for dairy value chain development in Nicaragua. Development in Practice 27(6):785-800. (RG Journal Impact: 0.75).

Climate change and vulnerability

  • Bryant CR, Chahine G. (2015.) Action research and reducing the vulnerability of peri-urban agriculture: a case study from the Montreal Region. Geographical Research 54(2):165–175. (Thompson Reuters Impact Factor: 1.343)
  • Bele MY, Sonwa DJ, and Tiani AM. (2013.) Profiling climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity of local communities in Bukavu, DR Congo. The Journal of Environment Development23:331-357. (Thompson Reuters Impact Factor: 2.313)
  • Mapfumo P, Nsiah-Adjei S, Mtambanengwe F, Chikowo R, and Giller KE. (2013.) Participatory Action Research (PAR) as an entry point for supporting climate change adaptation by small holder farmers. Environment and Development 5:6-22. (Thompson Reuters Impact Factor: 2.334)

End Note 

Putting people at the centre of development is the key to sustainable development. In a changing development scenario, extension professionals need to be competent in both technical areas of their field as well as in process skills. Farmers’ problems are multi-dimensional, it demands multidisciplinary research and convergence of all relevant stakeholders (currently missing in mostextension researches), whereas action research encourages agricultural stakeholders to keep an eye on changes and modify their approach and programs to suit the changing contexts.

However, currently MSc and PhD research is limited by institutional mandates and protocols with a pre-determined approach, which needs to be reviewed if action research is to be encouraged. Action research provides a unique opportunity for students to look at how participatory methods can be translated from theory into practice, how they become institutionalized, and its impact on diverse farming communities. The knowledge gained and generated in the process helps academicians, extension professionals and development practitioners to enhance theoretical understanding of how increasing peoples’ participation leads to increased empowerment and decision-making. Further, this process of participation brings change in people and nurture a sense of belonging and ownership towards developmental efforts, thereby leading to sustainability of the intervention undertaken. The students with these new skill sets are expected to become development facilitators and/or managers of rural innovation, who can simplify complex development processes. We should encourage extension researchers, especially PhD scholars, to undertake action research on contemporary issues– this change may call for the capacity building of faculty inaction research methodology.


Argyris C. (1985.) Action science, concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Calhoun E. (1994.) Action research: Three approaches. Educational leadership 51(2):62 65.

Chambers R. (1983.) Rural development: Putting the last first. London: Longman Press.

Checkland P and Holwell S. (1998.) Information, systems, and information systems: Making sense of the field. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Cooperrider DL and Shrevasteva S. (1987.) Appreciative inquiry in organisational life. In: Woodman and Pasmore (eds.), Research in organizational change and development. JAI Press.

Deming WE. (1986.) Out of the Crisis. Boston: MIT Press.

Dubey SK, Burman RR, Vijayaragavan K, Sharma JP, Singh I, Sangeetha V and Gupta HS. (2012.) Linking research institute with post offices for dissemination of agricultural technologies: an action research. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 82 (12):1059–67.

Kemmis S. (1988.) Action research in retrospect and prospect. Pages 27-39 in:Kemmis S and McTaggart R (eds.),The Action Research Reader. Third edition. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Kemmis S and McTaggart R. (1988.)The Action Research Planner. Third edition. Victoria: Deakin
University Press.

Kolb D. (1984.) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: PrenticeHall.

Lewin K. (1946.) Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2:34-36.

Lewin K. (1952.) Group decision and social change. In: TM Newcomb and EE Hartley (eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt.

Marquardt MJ. (1999.) Action learning in action: Transforming problems and people for world-class organizational learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

McCutcheon G. (1988.) Curriculum and the work of teachers. In: MW. Apple and L Beyer (eds.), The curriculum: problems, politics, and possibilities. New York: SUNY Press.

McNiff J. (2002.) Action research for professional development – Concise advice for new action researchers.

McNiff J and Whitehead J. (2010.) You and your action research project. Thirdedition. New York: Routledge.

Mertler CA and Charles CM. (2011.) Introduction to Educational Research. Seventh edition. Pearson/ Allyn & Bacon, Boston.

O’Brien R. (1998.) An overview of the methodological approach of action research. Available at

MoA&FW. (2017.) Report of the Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income: Empowering the Farmers through Extension and Knowledge Dissemination, Volume XI. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare.

Patki A. (2017.) Analysis of skill development schemes in Naxal affected area: An action research in Narayanpur district of Chhattisgarh. Unpublished MSc Thesis, PMRDFs Scheme, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

Revons RW. (1971.) Action learning: New techniques for managers. London: Blond & Briggs.

Rothman J and Dosik AA. (1999.) Action Evaluation: A New Method of Goal Setting, Planning and Defining Success for Community Development Initiatives.

Schon D. (1983.)The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Sharma A. (2017.) Creating community-led-sustainable livelihoods for walnut growers: An action research in Kishtwar district, Jammu and Kashmir. Unpublished MSc Thesis, PMRDFs Scheme, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

Sivakumar SP. (2015.) Negotiating reality: A pragmatic approach for conducting quality extension research. AESA Blog 44, February 2015.

Sivakumar SP and Sulaiman V. (2015.) Extension research in India: Current status and future strategies. AESA Working Paper 02.

Somekh B and Zeichner K. (2009.) Action research for educational reform: Remodelling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research 17 (1):5- 21.

StringerET. (2008.) Action research in education. Second edition. New Jersey: Pearson.
Susman G. (1983.)Action research: A socio-technical systems perspective. In: Morgan G. (ed.), Beyond method. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Thomas G, Krantz J and Ramirez R. (1986.) Action based modes of inquiry and the host-researcher
relationship.Consultation 5(3):160-176.

Tripps D. (2005.) Action research: A methodological introduction. Retrieved from

Trist E and Emery F. (1959.) A search conference model, adapted from ABL Group (1997). In: Future
Search Process Design. Toronto: York University.

Wells G. (1994.)Changing schools from within: Creating communities of inquiry. Toronto: OISE Press/Heinemann.

Whitehead J. (1989.) Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, ‘How do I
improve my practice?’ Cambridge Journal of Education 19(1):41- 52.

Whyte WF. (1964.) Action research for management. Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey.

Whyte WF. (1991.) Social theory for action. Beverly Hills: Sage.



Dr Sagar Kisan Wadkar is Assistant Professor at the Centre for Management Education, Vaikunth Mehta National Institute of Cooperative Management (VAMNICOM), Pune, Maharashtra. (email: 


Prof Birendra Kumar is Retd. Professor, Department of Agricultural  Communication, GBPUA& T, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand. (email:


Dr P Sethuraman Sivakumar is Principal Scientist at ICAR-Central Tuber Crop Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. (email:





Click here to post a comment

  • RM PRASAD Sir Thanks for your critical review and many constructive suggestions. Some of your comments may be incorporated in subsequent blogs or in other reading materials. My comments on your specific questions: Comment 1:How is action research different from the concept of PRAXIS? PRAXIS is one of several philosophies which guide action research, It is a part of Southern tradition of AR, and its explicit goal is to empower marginalized peoples and help them challenge their oppression. PRAXIS is long process that involves establishing mutually beneficial relationships between the researcher and members of the community of study. In PRAXIS AR, personal reflection of the researcher is the key source of data. PRAXIS AR may lead to achieving social objectives, but has poor generalisability. Comment 2: Can we have action extensionists who not only observe , but also try to influence the reality? In that case only, AR becomes applied research. You agree? AR not only generates knowledge, but also employs that knowledge Yes Sir. But, we also wish to advance knowledge, sharpen skills, and create positive and constructive attitude from an intervention along with solving problem/ improving a practice, which can be replicated with reasonable accuracy in similar contexts. Comment 3: Action research can be considered as part of a community of practice (which Sureshkumarji advocates) to improve the way practitioners address issues and solve problems. Agree? Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.It is applicable for all kinds of topics, not only AR Comment 4: I have come across an article on Action Research wherein it was mentioned that Jonathan Fox has launched an action research incubator that partners with public interest groups and policy makers to address relevant new change strategies and research questions. This is interesting which I share with you for further probing. Sir, I guess it was a part of a research project. Incubator is a mechanism through which innovative ideas are converted into usable products which have some value to others. If we feel that AR is the major research tradition to be promoted in extension, a similar mechanism may be explored.

  • Dr. Subramanian..Thanks for your comments about this blog. Though I have little contribution in this blog, I would like to put my views on your comments. 1. Comment – Beyond that, regarding the blog itself, it is a typical blog by an extension scientist (no slight intended), cold, aloof, academic, convenient and insensitive This blog is the first effort under this AESA platform to introduce the concept and practice of Action Research, in a view to help the reader to understand the importance of AR in extension. Though many extension scientists are aware of few dimensions of AR, this blog systematically put them under a framework. When we introduce a concept or put the existing concept in a certain framework, it is necessary to build a theoretical framework, It actually helps us to define the DOMAIN – an important aspect in any research or practice which sets the limits of our conceptual understanding, design and actions. AR is an umbrella concept , emerged out of mixed traditions of cultural anthropology , sociology, social-psychology etc. It is widely used in disciplines like Social Work, Rural Development, Psychology, extension and others. However, it is essential to understand that it is only a systematic process guided by certain philosophies for specific purposes. The philosophy, purpose and context are different in each discipline. AR has to be customised to meet the needs of each discipline. The problem is, we read AR in all disciplines and often fail to differentiate the philosophies and context associated with each discipline. For example, extension in agricultural and associated sciences is dealing with equipping stakeholders with scientific way to practicing agriculture through certain technologies. The technology takes the centre stage here and we are using AR to understand stakeholder situation, needs, and others to design or implement suitable interventions by applying scientific approach. Unfortunately, some researchers are applying the AR used in community development, which are less relevant for agriculture in the current context. We often talk about empowerment, advocacy which are higher order effects of AR which our research managers and policy makers are not interested. As a extension professional, we may create farmer organisations, influence the processes, fciliate them to get advisory services and support services in using technologies, which represent a limited form of advocacy. We are not expected to do community mobilization, promoting farmers rights in a big way through mass mobilisation, etc. When we appreciate the strengths of AR we need to understand our boundaries defined by our agriculture specialisation, university or extension agency mandate etc. 2. Comment – I read the part on action research process gritting my teeth for it is all about the researcher doing this, researcher doing that, solving a problem etc. etc. The biggest problem in action research is that the DOMAIN is not clearly defined or properly understood. The title of blog clearly sets the DOMAIN – whatever discussed here is restricted to the research or work conducted within an University. AR is basically deals with doing something to create a change while advancing knowledge in a systematic way. PAR is one aspect of AR, concerned with observing, understanding and acting in the microenvironment with the people associated with it to create a behavioural change among all while achieving the set objectives. Mobilization, sensitization and others are part of this process, but the outcome/ impact is defined in different terms. In an University, if the AR is conducted, the expected results are adoption, increase in productivity and the income. In this process, all the people who are involved are sensitized, develop empathy for others, create organised forms to sustain these impacts etc. In reality, such effects are confined only to the project duration and hardly measurable (since they are socio-psychological concepts which needs a different way of measurement and extension curriculum hardly develop such competencies). Even the concept of empowerment is widely misused and wrongly measured. In reality, these socio-psychological effects are not sustainable, because human behavior is so complex and often guided by resource-oriented interventions. There are innumerable examples in the Indian context to justify my statement. Another problem is, any empirical research is based on observable differences. As you indicated earlier, we are often obsessed with historical evolution, participatory philosophies and associated paradigm, and conveniently failed to design a concrete way of operationalising these concepts and philosophies at the grassroot level. It is easy to develop a scholastic view of something enriched with jargons, but empirical research demands concrete forms and observable ways of manipulating or working with them. AR is considered here only in empirical form guided by philosophical foundations.Technically, we are concerned with the process of doing it, thus the researchers role is dealt in an elaborate way. Comment 3:The role of the facilitator is to ……………and prepare a final report. What is a facilitator- a babu? a consultant? can a sensitive facilitator ever act that way? What about the trust that is built. The timing of withdrawal of action researcher from his field a very sensitive thing, given the emotional involvement of the facilitator. I understand your concerns about the emotional attachment , sensitivity and other aspects of AR. However, in any qualitative research including the mixed method AR, researcher has to be objective and unbiased. AR may involve lot of actions to create a change involving all stakeholders, but the researcher has to be focused and objective. Besides, the timing of withdrawal of researcher depends on external factors like project duration, funding availability, student thesis completion time etc.In a University setup, we dont expect a AR to emotionally influence the researcher (except for the sensitization of the researcher or student towards the farming community). If it happens, it will distort the validity of the results.This is only an introductory blog, the critical elements will be dealt only when if this aspect is dealt as a training programme, 4. Qualities of AR – Very constructive suggestion, will be included in subsequent blogs. 5. Comment 5: My very limited experience along those lines however, tells me that the above piece is a very superficial one. Good for a seminar, nothing more The term superficial is highly subjective, largely influenced by the state of the person who is using it and the person or things referred by them. As I already indicated it is the first blog on AR and not a complete treatise on AR. It is targeted to University domain with an objective to create among students to initiate AR. If we make this blog a complete one, as desired by you, it may be too complex for the readers. Besides your philosophy of AR may be different from what is perceived as necessity by the authors and the reviewers of this blog. It may be seen only as a baby step towards popularizing AR and creating an able workforce to conduct AR in the future.

  • Nice to see few reactions are coming up from experienced professionals from extension. Their comments are opening up many unexplored dimensions of action research – our search for clarity on the concept and practice of AR especially the domain of it application in extension (precisely our limits) , influence of our own philosophical orientations with practice, our perceptions about the outputs/outcomes and impact of AR as well as integrating it with extension research and practice. It would be great if we initiate discussion in the FB page and I request Dr Sagar or Dr Kumar to initiate the process and I will supplement where ever required. Replying to comments is a good practice which will helps the readers to get clarity of AR concept, its roles and impacts.

  • Happy to read an informative and useful blog. congrats to the authors.Dr. Sethuraman has to be appreciated for this blog useful not only for students, but also for extension scientists. I have some queries and suggestions. – How is action research different from the concept of PRAXIS? – can we have action extensionists who not only observe , but also try to influence the reality? In that case only, AR becomes applied research. You agree? AR not only generates knowledge, but also employs that knowledge – In the evolution of AR, dont you feel anthropology studies have significant contribution? – Action research can be considered as part of a community of practice (which Sureshkumarji advocates) to improve the way practitioners address issues and solve problems. Agree? – A mention about the 4 types of AR – diagnostic, participant, empirical and experimental could have been made and related to the cases. – I have come across an article on Action Research wherein it was mentioned that Jonathan Fox has launched an action research incubator that partners with public interest groups and policy makers to address relevant new change strategies and research questions. This is interesting which I share with you for further probing – Feedback has a critical role in AR which has developed programmes like DIEGO (Disseminating Impact from Engagement with User Groups and Organisations) I sincerely wish our young scientists will read this blog and look forward to have more of AR studies

  • It made me partly nostalgic. Beyond that, regarding the blog itself, it is a typical blog by an extension scientist (no slight intended), cold, aloof, academic, convenient and insensitive.I have very little idea about the background of the authors but I presume they have little hands on experience in action research. Let me point out some areas that I couldnt agree with. 1. The authors do not appear to have a grasp of different paths through which PAR evolved and which has greatly influenced the practice of AR. The blog appears to be favouring the same conventional paradigm that is reflected in most of our development initiatives: the we the knowledgeable good samaritans versus the they the poor and unfortunate. 2. I read the part on action research process gritting my teeth for it is all about the researcher doing this, researcher doing that, solving a problem etc. etc. Not my idea of PAR which involves sensitisation, concientisation and mobilisation of people so that they are empowered to solve their own problems. 3. The role of the facilitator is to ……………and prepare a final report. What is a facilitator- a babu? a consultant? can a sensitive facilitator ever act that way? What about the trust that is built. The timing of withdrawal of action researcher from his field a very sensitive thing, given the emotional involvement of the facilitator and people and extent of self dependence developed by his subjects. 4. qualities required for an action researcher-Thankfully it says it is not everybodys cup of tea but stops there. Sorry if my views appear dated. Cant help it. Again sorry if I sound harsh. Though I can neither claim to be action researcher nor that my version is the correct, My very limited experience along those lines however, tells me that the above piece is a very superficial one. Good for a seminar, nothing more

  • Thanks for mailing this blog – read and re-read with interest since I have not come across many notes / papers making a case for Participatory – Action Research in Agri. Extension (with due allowance to my limited access to literature). Well, I am not an Extension expert but as a practitioner I got interested considering the way Dr. Wadkar and colleagues developed a case for Participatory approach. I wish they would have given more space and developed / recommended adoption of Knowledge Based Innovation Systems Approach – for making full use of Farmers Wisdom. Another aspect that I feel not dealt in desired manner (and is a limitation for the total Research/Extension System) is developing strong and two way linkage between extension and research systems – a major limitation in my experience to effectiveness of the two systems

  • Another timely and very useful publication to improve skills of teachers and students to do action research besides continuing convention research remain relevant backed up with basic and strategic research in agricultural extension. The write up provides practical ways to update the skills and practice. The Blog reminds us how slow we are in the thinking (very less references from us). Let us catch up with times. Congratulations to learned authors