“Power to the people” is a popular political slogan that is used to convey the essence of democracy and participation. This paper derives from an action research intervention to implement participatory evaluation in a medium-sized private hospital in Nigeria, where the author was a training consultant. While the original objective of the intervention was to improve effectiveness of training through participatory evaluation, the study enabled an important outcome: it helped in clarifying and resolving social power differences prevalent in evaluation. The paper therefore contributes to the theory and practice of action research by describing how a researcher may better understand and relate to others with regard to social power. This plays a potentially useful role especially in participatory evaluation.
AshtonD. N. (2004) The impact of organisational structure and practices on learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development8(1): 43–53.
2.
BjornP.BoulusN. (2011) Dissenting in reflective conversations: Critical components of doing action research. Action Research9(3): 282–302.
3.
BradburyH. (2015) Introduction to the handbook of action research. In: BradburyH. (ed.) Handbook of action research, 3rd ed. London, UK: SAGE.
4.
BrownL. D.TandonR. (1983) Ideology and political economy in inquiry: Action research and participatory research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science19(3): 277–294.
5.
Brydon-MillerM.GreenwoodD.EikelandO. (2006) Conclusion: Strategies for addressing ethical concerns in action research. Action Research3(1): 129–131.
6.
CassellC.JohnsonP. (2006) Action research: Explaining the diversity. Human Relations59(6): 783–814.
7.
ChandlerD.TorbertW. R. (2003) Transforming inquiry in action: Interweaving 27 flavors of action research. Action Research1(2): 133–152.
8.
CoghlanD. (2001) Insider action research projects: Implications for practising managers. Management Learning32(1): 49–60.
9.
CoghlanD.BrannickT. (2010) Doing action research in your own organization, 3rd ed. London, UK: SAGE.
10.
CousinsJ. B.WhitmoreE. (1998) Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation80: 87–105.
11.
CullenA.CorynC. L. S. (2011) Forms and functions of participatory evaluation in international development: A review of the empirical and theoretical literature. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation7(16): 32–47.
12.
CunliffeA. L. (2011) Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on. Organizational Research Methods14(4): 647–673.
13.
DaviesB. (2008) Focus group. In: ThorpeR.HoltR. (eds) The Sage dictionary of qualitative management research, London, UK: SAGE, pp. 100–102.
Evered, R., & Louis, M. R. (1981). Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: “Inquiry from the inside” and “inquiry from the outside.” Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 385–395.
17.
FreemanT. (2006) “Best practice” in focus group research: Making sense of different views. Journal of Advanced Nursing56(5): 491–497.
18.
GaravanT. N. (1995) HRD stakeholders: Their philosophies, values, expectation and evaluation criteria. Journal of European Industrial Training19(10): 17–30.
19.
Gergen, K. J. (2015). From mirroring to world-making: Research as future forming. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(3), 287–310.
20.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (2008). Social constructionism. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 816–820). London, UK: Sage.
21.
HerrK.AndersonG. L. (2005) The action research dissertation: a guide for students and faculty, London, UK: SAGE.
22.
HumphreyC. (2007) Insider-outsider: Activating the hyphen. Action Research5(1): 11–26.
KingN. (2012) Doing template analysis. In: SymonG.CassellC. (eds) Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges, London, UK: SAGE, pp. 426–450.
25.
KitzingerJ. (1994) The methodology of focus group interviews: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness16(1): 103–121.
26.
KitzingerJ. (1995) Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal311: 299–302.
27.
KristiansenM.Block-PoulsenJ. (2004) Self-referentiality as a power mechanism: Towards dialogic action research. Action Research2(4): 371–388.
28.
KuhnT. S. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd rev. ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (original work published 1962).
SchonD. A. (1992) The crisis of professional knowledge and the pursuit of an epistemology of practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care6(1): 49–63.
36.
ShotterJ. (2010) Situated dialogic action research: Disclosing “beginnings” for innovative change in organizations. Organizational Research Methods13(2): 268–285.
37.
SusmanG. I.EveredR. D. (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly23: 582–602.
38.
TaylorG. W.UssherJ. M. (2001) Making sense of S&M: A discourse analytic account. Sexualities4(3): 293–314.
39.
VerhezenP. (2010) Giving voice in a culture of silence: From a culture of compliance to a culture of integrity. Journal of Business Ethics96(2): 187–206.
40.
WhartonT.AlexanderN. (2013) Evaluating a moving target: Lessons learned from using practical participatory evaluation (P-PE) in hospital settings. American Journal of Evaluation34(3): 402–412.
41.
WillianderM.StyreA. (2006) Going green from the inside: Insider action research at the Volvo Car Corporation. Systemic Practice and Action Research19: 239–252.
