Action research a Handbook for Students

participants of the research. That is why establishing rules of cooperation and 
identifying shared values at the very beginning of the process is so important for 
its development. However, there is no single pattern this process should follow. 
Based on the challenges most commonly encountered by researchers, Jill Grant, 
Geoffrey Nelson and Terry Mitchell [2008] propose several action strategies 
that support building relationships with action research (co-)participants. They 
are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Building relationships: challenges, action strategies
and competences of a researcher
c
hallengeS
a
ctiOn
StrategieS
n
eceSSary
cOmpetenceS
Of
the
reSearcher
Mistrust for outside researchers
Openness and honesty
Communication skills
Inadequate preparation of 
researchers to conduct the 
research
Formalization of the cooperation 
(contract, agreement)
Ability to conduct an honest and 
open dialogue
Gaining the most comprehensive 
knowledge possible about the 
community studied
Social competences, including 
especially empathy
Building informal relations
Maintaining regular contact with 
the organisation
Source: own work based on Grant, Nelson and Mitchell [2008].

---

97
c
hAPteR
4: The researcher and their relationships with (other) participants of action research
What is crucial in building relationships with members of the studied commu-
nity is basing the relationship on openness and honesty which allow to clearly 
state mutual expectations from the very start. This process can be formal and 
take the form of agreements (e.g. an agreement on information and data confi-
dentiality, an agreement specifying mutual expectations and obligations of the 
parties), or it can be worked out naturally and informally within daily exchanges. 
It should be emphasised that building relationships with stakeholders, based 
on mutual trust and honesty, according to Grant, Nelson and Mitchell [2008], 
supports true involvement of the employees of the organisation studied and the 
local community, their empowerment, as well as democratisation of the entire 
research process, which is an equally important objective of action research.
Often establishing details of the relationship between the researcher and 
study participants does not occur during their first meeting, as it necessitates 
taking action aiming at identifying “[...] issues and problems in action research 
which require an ethical code of practice to be negotiated between the researcher 
and the participants” [Meyer 2000, p. 9]. This, in turn, certainly requires time 
and thus also patience. Apart from familiarising oneself with the organisation 
through traditional methods like analysis of documents and websites, regular 
meetings with members of the organization, informal conversations and clearly 
communicated willingness to get to know each other by people who are to co-
operate in the research are definitely conducive to this process. The frequency 
of contacts of the researcher with members of the organisation is an individual 
issue influenced by e.g. the level of hierarchisation of the organisation or mutual 
relationships between its members. For example, the researcher should use the 
opportunity to attend both formal, weekly meetings of the members of the or-
ganisation, and — if possible — informal occasions, like having a meal together 
or going out for a coffee after work. This will allow the researcher to become 
a member of the group with which they will be working within the research.
Often processes of building relationships can be regarded as a waste of time, 
since instead of conducting actual research activities drawn from traditional 
methodological approaches, the researcher spends time on meetings, informal 
conversations or exchanging pleasantries. However, the time used for strength-
ening bonds will pay off in the future when the process of solving together the 
problem identified in the organisation begins.
1.3. Research community
The idea of participation in action research is understood by researchers as con-
ducting joint research or conducting studies with people and not on people 

---

A
ction
R
eseARch
A h
Andbook
foR
s
tudents
98
— the latter is typical for positivist research [Hynes, Coghlan, McCarron 2012 
quoted in: Reason, Bradbury 2008]. The important issue is that the phenomenon 
of participation in action research is considered as more profound than mere