Between the Ideal and the Real: Using Ethnography as a Way of Extending Our Language of Change

Abstract

The following paper is a critical examination of participatory action research in practice. By looking at two different narratives of this methodology in practice the aim of the paper is to initiate a discussion around the ways in which we ¹ talk about participatory action research—our narratives of participatory action research—and how these forms of expression constrain our theorising of people, interaction, and change. The first narrative discussed follows the conventions of action research. I describe this narrative as a formal narrative that highlights the ideal dimensions of participatory action research. The second narrative follows ethnographic conventions. I describe this narrative as an informal narrative that highlights the real (or lived experience in the language of ethnography) dimensions of participatory action research. In comparing and contrasting the two narratives, I aim to demonstrate the narrative conventions that govern change experiences. I conclude by suggesting that on the one hand we need to maintain a tension between the ideal and the real but at the same time acknowledge that sometimes narrative conventions of the ideal are difficult to break away from.

¹By “we,” I am referring to researchers and practitioners, that is, experts of action research.

Keywords:

• participatory action research
• ethnography
• narrative
• social practice theories
• de Certeau

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Polona Curk and the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on drafts of this paper. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 22nd European Group for Organisational Studies Conference in Bergen, 2006.

Notes

¹By “we,” I am referring to researchers and practitioners, that is, experts of action research.

²An analysis of the merger can be found in Garcia-Lorenzo & Nolas (2005).

³Prus refers to interviews as a third data source; I would suggest that “interviews” is the method resulting from the research action of interpersonal communication.

⁴The different geographical locales of the groups have been omitted in an effort to de-identify the programme, groups, young people, and youth workers the paper talks about. All youth workers and young people's names have been pseudonymised.

⁵The brief read as follows: tell us about your community, what are the positive and what are the negative things about your community, what would you change about your community, where do you see yourself in five years time and finally, what do you think of the Play On programme.

⁶These concerns echo findings from the antecedent research project conducted by my colleagues in both Peru (Ramella 2002) and England (Humphreys & Olmos 2003).

⁷This was filmed by one of the guy's friends while another friend acted as the interviewer and read the question. We were present during the filming as this was one of the first attempts this group had made filming and we were helping them.

⁸I would like to acknowledge Professor Patrick Humphreys for pointing this out to me.

⁹‘The genre is stronger than the writer's ability to resist it’ (Toby Litt quoted in Time Out, April 4–10, 2007).