Advanced search
Publication Cover
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education Volume 30, 2017 - Issue 5: Can Participatory Action Research (PAR) Democratize Research, Knowledge and Schooling?: Experiences from the Global South and North
Submit an article Journal homepage
2,034
Views
32
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Participatory action research (PAR) as democratic disruption: new public management and educational research in schools and universities

Gary AndersonDepartment of Administration, Leadership, and Technology, New York University, New York, USACorrespondence[email protected]
Pages 432-449 | Received 26 Mar 2016, Accepted 08 Dec 2016, Published online: 07 Apr 2017

References

  • Adamson, F., Astrand, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (Eds.). (2016). Global education reform: How privatization and public investment influence education outcomes. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). Rethinking value-added models in education: Critical perspectives on tests and assessment-based accountability. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Anderson, G. (2009). Advocacy leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Anderson, G., & Cohen, M. I. (2015). Redesigning the identities of teachers and leaders: A framework for studying new professionalism and educator resistance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(85), 1–29. doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.2086
  • Anderson, G. L., De La Cruz, P., & Lopez, A. (2017). New governance and new knowledge brokers: Think tanks and universities as boundary organizations. Peabody Journal of Education, 92, 4–15.
  • Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28, 12–21.10.3102/0013189X028005012
  • Anderson, G. L., & Montoro Donchik, L. (2016). The privatization of education and policy-making: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and network governance in the United States. Educational Policy, 30, 322–364.
  • Anderson, G. L., & Scott, J. (2012). Toward an intersectional understanding of social context and causality. Qualitative Inquiry, 18, 674–685.
  • Anyon, J. (2014). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Apple, M. (2004). Schooling, markets, and an audit culture. Educational Policy, 18, 614–621.10.1177/0895904804266642
  • Arellano-Gault, D. (2010). Economic-NPM and the need to bring justice and equity back to the debate on public organizations. Administration & Society, 42, 591–612.10.1177/0095399710379205
  • Au, W. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30, 39–62. 10.1177/0895904815614916
  • Ball, S. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18, 215–228.10.1080/0268093022000043065
  • Ball, S. (2012). Global education Inc: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. London: Routledge.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Barker, J. (1992). Tightening the iron cage: Concretive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437.
  • Berliner, D. (2009). Poverty and potential: Out-of-school factors and school success. Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential
  • Bottery, M. (1996). The challenge to professionals from the new public management: Implications for the teaching profession. Oxford Review of Education, 22, 179–197.10.1080/0305498960220206
  • Braun, A., Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32, 585–596. doi:10.1080/01596306.2011.601555
  • Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Burch, P. (2014). Equal scrutiny: Privatization and accountability in digital education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  • Burris, V. (2008). The interlock structure of the policy-planning network and the right turn in U.S. state policy. Research in Political Sociology, 17, 1–35.
  • Callahan, R. (1964). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of the public schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Cammarota, J. (2009–2010). The cultural organizing of formal praxis-based pedagogies: A socio-historical approach to participatory action research. Social Justice, 36, 6–13.
  • Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (Eds.). (2008). Revolutionalizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. (2010). Participatory action research for high school students: Transforming policy, practice, and the personal with social justice education. Educational Policy, 25, 488–506.
  • Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: knowing through action research. Lewes: Falmer Press.
  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside-outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Cohen, M. (2013). In the back of our minds always’: Reflexivity as resistance for the performing principal. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 17, 1–22.
  • Cuban, L. (2004). The blackboard and the bottom line: Why schools can’t be businesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 147–158.10.1007/s10833-011-9154-1
  • De Schutter, A., & Yopo, B. (1981). Investigación participativa: Una opción metodológica para la educatión de adultos. Patzcuaro [Participatory research: A methodological option for adult education]. Michoacan, Mexico: CREFAL.
  • Debray, E. (2006). Politics, ideology, & education: Federal policy during the Clinton and Bush administration. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Deming, W. E. (1993). The new economics for industry, government, and education. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
  • Drame, E., & Irby, D. (2015). Positionality and racialization in a PAR project: Reflections and insights from a school reform collaboration. The Qualitative Report, 20, 1164–1181.
  • Driscoll, M. E. (1998). Professionalism versus community: Is the conflict between school and community about to be resolved? Peabody Journal of Education, 73, 89–127.10.1080/01619569809538879
  • Duckworth, E. (1997). Teacher to teacher: Learning from each other. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Dumas, M. J., & Anderson, G. (2014). Qualitative research as policy knowledge: Framing policy problems and transforming education from the ground up. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22. doi:10.14507/epaa.v22n11.2014
  • Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Erickson, F. (2014). Scaling down: A modest proposal for practice-based policy research in teaching. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(9), 1–15. doi:10.14507/epaa.v22n9.2014
  • Erickson, F., & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31, 21–24.10.3102/0013189X031008021
  • Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and new public management: Changes, continuities, and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8, 247–266.10.1163/156913309X421655
  • Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research. New York, NY: Intermediate Technology/Apex.10.3362/9781780444239
  • Fenstermacher, G. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 3–56.
  • Fine, M. (2008). An epilogue of sorts. In J. Cammarota & M. Fine (Eds.), Revolutionalizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 213–234). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Fine, M., Ayala, J., & Zaal, M. (2012). Public science and participatory policy development: Reclaiming policy as a democratic project. Journal of Education Policy, 27, 685–692.10.1080/02680939.2012.710023
  • Flores-Kastanis, E., Montoya-Vargas, J., & Suarez, D. (2009). Participatory action research in Latin American Education: A road map to a different part of the world. In S. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The Sage handbook of educational action research (pp. 453–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Francis, D. (1996). Moving from noninterventionist research to participatory action: Challenges for academe. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 75–86.10.1080/0951839960090107
  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
  • Frontline. (2006). The testing industry’s big four. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/testing/companies.html
  • Fuentes, E. (2009–2010). Possibilities and constraints of participatory action research. Social Justice, 36, 69–83.
  • Ginsberg, M., & Gorostiaga, J. (2001). Relationships between theorists/researchers and policy makers/practitioners: Rethinking the two cultures thesis and the possibility of dialogue. Comparative Education Review, 45, 173–189. doi:10.1086/447660
  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.
  • Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functional reason. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
  • Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell.
  • Herr, K. (2015). Cultivating disruptive subjectivities: Interrupting the new professionalism. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(86), 1–21. doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.2097
  • Herr, K. (2017). Insiders doing PAR with youth in their schools: Negotiating professional boundaries and healing justice. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, this issue.
  • Herr, K., & Anderson, G. (2008). Teacher research and learning communities: A failure to theorize power relations? Language Arts, 85, 382–391. doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.2097
  • Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.10.1111/padm.1991.69.issue-1
  • Hursh, D. (2008). High stakes testing and the decline of teaching and learning: The real crisis in education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Johnson, A. W. (2009). Objectifying measures: The dominance of high-stakes testing and the politics of schooling. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
  • Jordan, S. (2003). Who stole my methodology? Co-opting PAR. Globalization, Societies and Education, 1, 185–200.10.1080/14767720303913
  • Jordan, S., & Kapoor, D. (2016). Re-politicizing participatory action research: Unmasking neoliberalism and the illusions of participation. Educational Action Research, 24, 134–149. doi:10.1080/09650792.2015.1105145
  • Kickert, W. (1995). Steering at a distance: A new paradigm of public governance in Dutch higher education. Governance, 8, 135–157. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.1995.tb00202.x
  • Labaree, D. (1998). Educational researchers: Living with a lesser form of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–12.10.3102/0013189X027008004
  • Labaree, D. (2011). The lure of statistics for educational researchers. Educational Theory, 61, 621–632.10.1111/edth.2011.61.issue-6
  • Lageman, E. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lather, P., & St. Pierre, E. (2013). Introduction: Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 629–633.10.1080/09518398.2013.788752
  • Lave, J. (1988). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick, S. Levine, & L. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives of socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509–536.
  • Mautner, G. (2010). Language and the market society: Critical reflections on discourse and dominance. London: Routledge.
  • Mayrowetz, D., Murphy, J., Louis, K. S., & Smylie, M. (2007). Distributed leadership as work redesign: Retrofitting the job characteristics model. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 69–101.10.1080/15700760601091275
  • McDonald, J. (2007). The power of protocols. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • McDonald, J. (2014). American school reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226124865.001.0001
  • McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 77, 339–351.
  • Miller, J. (1990). Creating spaces and finding voices: Teachers collaborating for empowerment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Miller, J. (2017). Neo-positivist intrusions, post-qualitative challenges, and par’s generative indeterminacies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, this issue.
  • Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2008). Community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Mungal, A. (2016). Teach for America, relay graduate school, and the charter school networks: The making of a parallel education structure. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(17), 1–25. doi:10.14507/epaa.24.2037
  • National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education (R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne, Eds.; Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
  • Nunez, I., Michie, G., & Konkel, P. (2015). Worth striking for: Why education policy is every teacher’s concern. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Nygreen, K. (2013). These kids: Identity, agency, and social justice at a last chance high school. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226031736.001.0001
  • Payne, C. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  • Phillips, A. (2015, September 15). Frustrated with city’s data system, teachers build their own. Chalkbeat. Retrieved from http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2010/09/15/frustrated-with-citys-data-system-teachers-build-their-own/#.V32ECZMrJE4
  • Podair, J. (2004). The strike that changed New York: Blacks, whites and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville crisis. New Haven, CO: Yale University Press.
  • Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Curriculum and Development.
  • Power, M. (1999). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198296034.001.0001
  • Reip, C., & Machacek, M. (2016). Schooling the poor profitably: The innovations and deprivations of Bridge International Academies in Uganda. Brussels: Education International.
  • Robinson, M. (2010, November). School perspectives on collaborative inquiry: Lessons learned from New York City, 2009–20010. New York, NY: Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE).
  • Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rose, N. (1993). Government, authority, and expertise in advanced liberalism. Economy and Society, 22, 283–300.10.1080/03085149300000019
  • Saltman, K. (2009). The rise of venture philanthropy and the ongoing neoliberal assault on public education: The case of the Eli and Edythe broad foundation. Workplace, 16, 53–72.
  • Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23, 106–136.
  • Sergiovanni, T. (1999). The life world of leadership: Creating culture, community, and personal meaning in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Shdaimah, C., Stahl, R., & Schram, S. (2009). When you can see the sky through your roof: Policy analysis from the bottom up. In E. Schatz (Ed.), Political ethnography: What immersion contributes to the study of power (pp. 255–274). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Shipps, D. (2012). Empowered or beleaguered? Principals’ accountability under New York city’s diverse provider regime. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(1), 1–39.10.14507/epaa.v20n1.2012
  • Shutz, A. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city. The tragic failure of school-based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76, 691–743.10.3102/00346543076004691
  • Sizer, T. (1984). Horace’s compromise. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  • Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. (2004). Educational equity and accountability. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203465615
  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2009). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Sondel, B. (2016). “No excuses” in New Orleans: The silent passivity of neoliberal schooling. The Educational Forum, 80, 171–188.10.1080/00131725.2016.1135376
  • Stoudt, B. G. (2008). The role of language and discourse in the investigation of privilege: Using participatory action research to discuss theory, develop methodology, and interrupt power. Urban Review, 41, 7–28.
  • Sutton, M., & Levinson, B. A. (2000). Introduction: Policy as/in practice – A sociocultural approach to the study of educational policy. In M. Sutton & B. A. U. Levinson (Eds.), Policy as practice. Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy (pp. 1–22). Westport, CT: Ablex.
  • Talbert, J. (2012). Inquiry-based school reform: Lessons from SAM in NYC. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for Research on the Context of Teaching.
  • Uetricht, M. (2014). Strike for America: Chicago teachers against austerity. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
  • Vasquez Heilig, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 75–110.10.3102/0162373708317689
  • Verger, A., Lubienski, C., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). The global education industry. London: Routledge.
  • Ward, S. (2012). Neoliberalism and the global restructuring of knowledge and education. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Wayman, J., & Springfield, S. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education, 112, 549–571. doi:10.1086/505059.
  • Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 171–197.10.17763/haer.47.2.v870r1v16786270x
  • Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.10.2307/2391875
  • Werts, A., & Brewer, C. (2015). Reframing the study of policy implementation: Lived experience as politics. Educational Policy, 29, 206–229.10.1177/0895904814559247
  • Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park: Sage.
  • Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 36–46.10.1177/0022487106296219
  • Zeichner, K. (2010). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1544–1552.10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.004

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.