Introduction

The use of action research to inform and develop public policy and professional practice has a long tradition. Its roots can be found in a variety of intellectual traditions and practices. In the analysis of conflict between social groups, where the method originated (Lewin, 1948), in industry, where programmes of work on industrial democracy and quality of working life were pursued by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (Rapoport, 1970), and in health and social care (Winter and Munn-Giddings, 2001), where Hart and Bond (1995) published a comprehensive account, action research has become well recognised as a method for learning and change. Lewin's own work and stance on action research and on social (field) theory for change has been examined, challenged and positively reassessed (Burnes, 2004). Thriving specialist centres of teaching and practice and a growing range of publications add to debate about the character of action research and its relationship to other forms of inquiry and practice. The publication of an academic handbook dedicated to action research (Reason and Bradbury, 2001) is testimony to the extent of interest in the approach and its growing maturity.

As commentaries on the approach suggest, and as we will explain and illustrate below, action research has developed a range of forms, each emphasising different commitments within a complex and contingent practice. There is a set of basic, shared commitments: to linking inquiry and intervention to produce intelligent action for change; to iteration between action and research in a spiral or helical process; to seeking to develop understanding progressively during the course of the process; to create the conditions where action can take place and be revised; and to collaborative inquiry involving practitioners and researchers. But there are also choices to be made and tensions that arise in the organisation, design and practice of action research and this chapter reflects on choices made and tensions experienced in the projects in the Sustainable Health Action Research Programme (SHARP).

Chapter Two argued that, while there is a great deal of evidence about the social patterning and causes of health inequalities, there is much less evidence about how practically to address inequalities, especially through local action, and what the costs and ‘side effects’ of policies/actions might be.