Action Research in Criminal Justice

Restorative justice approaches in intercultural settings

Inge Vanfraechem, Ivo Aertsen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781317310082
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

To understand how people experience justice and security is a challenging task in times of unrest, marked by growing perceptions of insecurity, discrimination and uncertainty. The European project ALTERNATIVE aimed to understand justice and security experiences related to conflicts in intercultural settings, when citizens are given the means to actively contribute to these processes.

This book relates how the project was set up as an action research through the concrete description of four action sites: social housing estates in Vienna, Austria; a small community in Hungary with a Roma population; three border towns in Serbia; and three communities in Northern Ireland. These four sites have been compared through an innovative methodology, which leads to a deeper understanding of the impact of participatory and restorative justice oriented processes, and - in a more general way - of what action research may entail in the criminological field. Bringing together researchers and case studies from around Europe, this book examines the scientific potential of action research as a methodology in criminal justice settings.

This book is one of two volumes resulting from the work by a group of researchers in six European countries having cooperated intensively during four years in ALTERNATIVE, an action research project funded under the EU Seventh Framework Programme.

1 Action research in intercultural settings and restorative justice

Setting the scene

Ivo Aertsen

Introduction

If you want to know how things really are, just try to change them

(Lewin, 1958, cited in Huizer, 1993, p. 60)

The quote above from the man who is historically considered to be the founder of social psychology is well known, but less well integrated in the self-image of what social scientists can do in their daily work. Indeed, the predominant idea of social research is to understand individual and social realities by looking at them from the outside. Social research requires distance, neutrality and objectivity when approaching the objects of study. Giving up this external position, mingling subject and object, is threatening and feels highly uncomfortable. Good research then would be no longer possible. Action research seems to question these assumptions fundamentally. How can this challenge be understood, and how does action research appear in studies on crime and social control?

In this opening chapter, we first introduce action research by situating it within the development of social sciences from the middle of the twentieth century. Then we have a look at the role of action research within the field of criminology and criminal justice, referring to examples from various countries. The action research approach in intercultural settings and the concept of action research as developed within the European FP7-project ALTERNATIVE, is explained in the third part of this chapter. We will come back to the role of action research at the end of the book, after discussing in the next chapters action research as it was used in the respective work packages of ALTERNATIVE.

Action research in social sciences

The growth of a movement

Action research as a social research approach developed from the 1940s onwards, first in the USA, then in the UK and other European countries. Initially, from a social-psychological approach the focus was on problem-solving processes in small groups. Social-political movements discovered action research in the 1960s and 1970s, among others in Germany. A recurrent, main objective of the researchers was to narrow the gap between theory and practice. In that period, authors such as Moser (1975) criticized existing forms of empirical-analytical research. They introduced action research as a fundamentally new approach in social sciences, a new paradigm focusing on the development of social theory where the observer’s and participant’s positions were essentially interlinked. At the core of their argument was the replacement of a ‘monologue’ concept of truth by a ‘dialogical’ one. In various European countries, action research got through in the wake of university democratizing movements in the 1970s and early 1980s. Against this background, action research was not to be reduced to a new form of applied research, but was given a strong normative, societal function thanks to the researchers’ commitment. Through action research, a connection was made between research, learning, education and awareness-building while bridging between the individual and societal level.

Action research is closely linked to the theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism in social sciences. The line of thinking started from a critical attitude twoards a formalistic approach of social realities where insufficient room was given to the subjective life world of people and their capacities to give meaning, to communicate and to act in a social environment. In the 1970s, action research was also supported by Marxist-inspired epistemologies, where the scope of study broadened to the social-structural and historical context of the phenomenon, and of which Paolo Freire with his ‘pedagogy of the oppressed’ (1972) is the most prominent example.

Throughout the years, action research has developed in diverse fields: in health care, school work, youth care, community development, adult education, social work, industry, trade unions, and foreign aid in developing countries. The diversity of this field of application might explain the variety in action research models and varying emphases. However, action research never witnessed a breakthrough in the field of criminology or criminal justice.

A revival of action research took place in the 1990s. According to some, the spirit of the age made this possible (Reason and Bradbury, 2001, pp. 1–14). According to new understandings of science, the existence of an external world independent from our interpretation and construction is no longer accepted. In a post-modern era, the researcher becomes a partner in the construction of his object of study. Acquiring ‘objective’ knowledge is no longer possible, since the researcher is always part of the concerned field. The development of knowledge cannot be neutral or without interest, since doing research always happens in a context of power structures which also determine our ways of thinking. Hence, the new challenge is to counteract epistemological hegemonies. In this perspective, it becomes attractive to address minority positions and various forms of deviant behaviour, in order to disclose ‘new’ interpretation schemes of social phenomena. Here, criminology appears with a renewed interest in action research, as it is also reflected in new theoretical movements such as the ‘constitutive criminology’ of Henry and Milovanovic (1996).

Defining action research

What is action research more precisely? Qualitative research methods always require a certain level of psychological and/or social ‘understanding’ and a form of empathy. To a certain extent, the researcher is always ‘involved’ in the setting. However, when this involvement results in an active intervention of the researcher in the function of direct problem solving or improvement of practice, we might speak of ‘action research’. Hence, action research is distinct from other types of qualitative research by the direct involvement of the researcher in a process of action. Action research aims at developing and implementing a process of planned change in practice and at the same time acquiring knowledge on both the process of change and the results thereof (Aertsen and Peters, 1995, pp. 224–226). Action research can be defined as a form of action starting from a problem in order to change the situation in close cooperation with those involved in the field, but also often with the underlying goal of developing or contributing to theory (Bouverne-De Bie, 1989, p. 147). A more classic definition reads as follows:

Action research … 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 client, and thus it stresses the importance of co-learning as a primary aspect of the research process.

(Gilmore, Krantz and Ramirez, 1986, p. 161)

Action research means linking action to research through providing ongoing exchange in a cyclical process. The element of ‘action’ implies intervention and change, according to predetermined goals. Strategy and envisaged process are discussed beforehand, together with the practitioners. The element of ‘research’ concerns the development of knowledge and includes parts of process and outcome evaluation. Researchers and researched persons are equal partners in the discussion, although specific capacities or skills can be mobilized rather on one or the other side. Those researched are the experts in their own experience and perceptions, while the researchers are more skilled in collecting, analysing and presenting data. In sum, contrary to what is the case in traditional empirical-analytical research, in action research the field of study is not merely object but also the subject actively contributing to the research.

But as mentioned, action research is not only an instrument for practice improvement or policy development, it also contributes to theory in a given domain (see Dick, Stringer and Huxham, 2009). Therefore, the classic function between fundamental or theoretical research on the one hand and applied or empirical research on the other hand, must be nuanced. In action research, theory development occurs in an inductive way and is interpretative, rather than explanatory or predictive.

Among the many existing definitions of action research the following are worth adding in the context of our project:

Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out.

(Carr and Kemmis, 1986, p. 162)

Action research is an orientation to knowledge creation that arises in a context of practice and requires researchers to work with practitioners. Unlike conventional social science, its purpose is not primarily or solely to understand social arrangements, but also to effect desired change as a path to generating knowledge and empowering stakeholders. We may therefore say that action research represents a transformative orientation to knowledge creation in that action researchers seek to take knowledge production beyond the gate-keeping of professional knowledge makers.

(Bradbury Huang, 2010, p. 93; original emphasis)

Action research happens when people research their own practice in order to improve it and to come to a better understanding of their practice situations. It is action because they act within the systems that they are trying to improve and understand. It is research because it is systematic, critical inquiry made public.

(Feldman, Bennett and Vernaza-Hernández, 2015, p. 89)

Types of action research

Notwithstanding the presence of a shared conceptual framework as mentioned above, there remains a lot of confusion about action research. Sometimes all types of ‘field research’ are considered to be action research, independently of the final goal of the initiative. Sometimes, action research is associated with ‘practice-oriented research’: various types of research that should contribute to the solution of practical problems. In this sense, also the term ‘accompanying research’ is used (Pelikan, 2009). In some instances, carrying out a ‘pilot project’ or an ‘experimental project’ is seen as action research. For some, different types of ‘consultancy’ work and all kinds of mutual exchange between researchers and practitioners is action research. And finally, sometimes action research is discussed in very general terms as every type of research that serves both the theoretical interests of the researchers and the pragmatic needs of policy makers.

Different functions might be allocated to action research. Action research can be used as a strategy for innovation and change (social engineering), as a research method, or as an alternative paradigm or discourse. Moreover, action research can adopt a normative or a more pragmatic orientation: in the first case the objectives of the action are co-decided by the researcher, while this is not the case in the pragmatic variant. Action research in the domain of restorative justice has often a normative-exemplary function, where a perspective of generalization of the new type of action prevails (Aertsen, 2002).

A frequently used term is ‘participatory action research’. In this type of research, the emphasis is on the potential for those involved in practice – often within organizations – to fully participate in the research and to optimally use its results in order to improve the situation. Here, the members of the group participate actively throughout the whole research process, from defining the research questions, drafting the research design, implementing the research activities, collecting and interpreting the data and reporting the results. In this type of far-reaching action research, the role of the researcher is rather one of ‘facilitator’ or ‘coach’, who provides and supports learning processes within the organization (Whyte, 1991). In the same sphere ‘community-based action research’ has to be considered, where practitioners as direct stakeholders investigate the problems systematically, search explanations and finally elaborate problem-solving strategies (Stringer, 1999).

Reason and Bradbury (2001, pp. xxv–xxvi) attempt to bring an order in the diversity of action research practices by distinguishing three types depending on the scope of the research: ‘first-person action research’, starting from the personal environment of the researcher; ‘second-person action research’, focusing on the interpersonal level of research activities or the group level; and ‘third-person action research’, where the results of pilot studies are transferred to a larger societal context.

Phases in action research

In action research, the process is not determined into detail in advance. The process evolves in function of the options that are taken continuously by the partners after evaluative moments. Therefore, action research typically is characterized by a cyclical process. It is a spiral movement in which the same phases return repeatedly (Stringer, 2007, p. 8):

1 Look: the problem, assumptions and starting positions are discussed and defined, with the active involvement of the stakeholders;

2 Think: meanings are clarified in mutual consultation, the problem is further interpreted and analysed;

3 Act: planning of the action, implementation, adaptation and evaluation.

Hence, in participatory action research, ‘self-reflexive cycles’ occur (Kemmis and Wilkinson, 1998): (1) planning the process of change; (2) implementing the action and observing the process and its results; (3) reflecting about this process and its consequences; and (4) planning again the further process of change.

Two additional phases might be important in the ‘empirical cycle’ of action research, and they have proved to be relevant for the fieldwork in ALTERNATIVE (Van Dijkum, van Dobben de Bruyn and Kats, 1981, pp. 38–47): both a preliminary and a concluding phase have to be added. The preliminary phase entails mutual orientation between researchers and practitioners: the respective positions, interests and possibilities are discussed; full attention is given to building up the relationship; a first exploration of the problem is undertaken; decisions are made whether to cooperate or not; and finally concrete arrangements are made. A concluding phase can be necessary when the solutions are evaluated positively, since then a phase of ‘stabilizing’ and ‘transfer’ is needed, this is: a cycle of transfer of learning and influencing.

Methodological principles in action research

Some of the most important methodological principles can be summarized as follows (Frognier, 1980):

• In action research, the research topic is decided upon through a process of consultation or negotiation between the direct stakeholders, the researchers and the commissioner (funder) of the project.

• A de-localization of the researcher takes place: the researcher is neither an external expert nor a group member; he is a kind of ‘associated’ or ‘affiliated’ participant; it concerns no longer research about, but research with.

• The action research is a learning process. The learning process cannot be reduced to a series of evaluations at given moments. It requires an ongoing alternation of analysis and action. It is a collective learning process focusing on the creation of new, common opportunities.

In action research, the researcher takes a role that is quite different from traditional research. The researcher is very much involved in the field and will co-direct the course of the action. He does not only collect and analyse information. He also looks after the general process development and will take initiative if necessary. H...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: ALTERNATIVE understandings of justice and security through restorative justice approaches
• 1 Action research in intercultural settings and restorative justice: setting the scene
• 2 Visualizing action research in the ALTERNATIVE context
• 3 Participatory filming as part of action research in ALTERNATIVE: experiences from four countries
• 4 Getting involved and remaining distant: on action research in Vienna
• 5 Turning resistance to cooperation: action research in Hungary
• 6 Conflicts, victimization and restorative justice in intercultural settings: an example of action research in Serbia
• 7 Working across frontiers: community-based restorative justice in Northern Ireland
• 8 Qualitative comparative analysis
• Conclusion: action research through restorative justice
• Index