Davyyd Greenwood explores the nature of academic social sciences, as “primarily internally regulated, university-based, professional activities”, that “privilege ‘theory’ and ‘method’ over all else, though what theory and method mean in this context is quite out of step with the meanings of these terms in the physical and natural sciences”. He then goes on to discuss a series of an important difference between these ‘sciences’ and action research and concludes that: “From what I have written, it seems that action research should dominate the social sciences. It has methods that are far more ‘scientific’ in the sense of knowledge tested and refined in action. It mobilizes relevant knowledge from people in a position to know their condition far better than conventional research can with its extractive approach… And it is driven by strongly-held democratic values”. Why doesn’t it, in fact, do so? Greenwood suggests two reasons: “suppression by the social sciences and political elites and the sloppiness and negligence of action researchers themselves”.
Research Professor on society, culture, art, cognition, critical thinking, intelligence, creativity, neuroscience, autopoiesis, self-organization, complexity, systems, networks, rhizomes, leadership, sustainability, thinkers, futures ++
920 Posts in this Blog
- Follow Learning Research Methods on WordPress.com