Action research has approached conflict mainly through the concept of conflict resolution, where action researchers play a role as third parties acting as organizers, conveners, and facilitators. This paper proposes a complementary role as stakeholders in the conflicts of territorial development and thus, as one more part in conflict. This is done in the context of one specific approach to action research, namely, action research for territorial development and one specific project, the Territorial Development Laboratory initiated in 2009 in Gipuzkoa, Basque Country, Spain. The paper argues that the ideological and political positions of action researchers, legitimated by the other stakeholders through the action research process, give them a stake in territorial development conflicts. It also revisits the interpretation of participation in action research in order to conceptualize action researchers’ role as stakeholders in the conflicts of territorial development. These discussions are of interest for any action researcher wanting to explore her or his role as a part in conflict in action research processes and not exclusively as a third party facilitating the process.
AlburquerqueF.CostamagnaP.FerraroC. (2008). Desarrollo local, descentralización y democracia. Ideas Para Un Cambio, Buenos Aires.
2.
ArronaA.LarreaM. (2018). Soft resistance: Balancing relationality and criticality to institutionalise action research. In BartelsKWittmayerJM (Eds), Action research in policy analysis: Critical and relational approaches to sustainability transitions.
Oxfordshire, UK:
Routledge.
3.
BartelsK. P. R.WittmayerJ. M. (2014).
Symposium introduction: Usable knowledge in practice: What AR has to offer to critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies,
8(4), 397–406.
4.
BergerP. L.LuckmannT. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge.
London, UK:
Penguin Books.
5.
CoghlanD.Brannick. (2010). Doing action research in your own organization.
Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
6.
CostamagnaP.LarreaM. (2018). Facilitative actors of territorial development, a social construction-based approach.
Bilbao, Spain:
Deusto University Press.
7.
DenzinN. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism.
Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
8.
DiesingP. (2012). Science and ideology in the policy sciences.
New Brunswick, NJ:
Aldine Transactions.
9.
FalzoneP. (2004).
Transcendent ethnography: Designing an action research approach to ethnographic film within cultures of conflict. Action Research,
2(3), 326–344.
10.
FolletM. P. (1930). Creative experience.
Toronto, Canada:
Forgotten Books. Longmans, Green and Co.
11.
FreireP. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed.
Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin Books.
12.
FreireP. (2008). Pedagogía de la Esperanza: Un reencuentro con la pedagogía del Oprimido.
Buenos Aires, Argentina:
Siglo XXI.
13.
FriedmanV. J.RothmanJ. (2015). Action evaluation: An action research practice of the participative definition, monitoring and assessment of success in social innovation and conflict engagement. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of action research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
14.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays.
New York, NY:
Basic Books.
15.
GergenK. J.GergenM. M. (2015). Social construction and research as action. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of AR (3rd ed., pp. 401–408). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
16.
GreenwoodD.LevinM. (2007). Introduction to AR (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
17.
GustavsenB. (1992). Dialogue and development. Theory of communication, action research and the restructuring of working life.
Assen, the Netherlands:
Van Gorcum.
18.
HerrK.AndersonG. L. (2005). The action research dissertation, a guide for students and faculty.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
19.
HilgardE. R.LernerD. (1951). The person: Subject and object of science and policy. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds), The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method (pp. 16–43). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
IsaksenA. (2001).
Building regional innovation systems: Is endogenous industrial development possible in the global economy?Canadian Journal of Regional Science,
1, 101–120.
21.
JacobsG. (2010).
Conflicting demands and the power of defensive routines in participatory action research. Action Research,
8(4), 367–386.
22.
JohannsenA. M. (2001). Participatory action-research in post-conflict situations: The example of the War-torn Societies Project. Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation. Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, Berlin.
23.
KammererA. (1998). Conflict management: action research. Evaluative Report, 142, US Department of Education.
24.
KarlsenJ.LarreaM. (2014). Territorial development and AR: Innovating through dialogue.
Farnham, UK / Burlington, VT:
Gower Applied Research.
25.
KarrW.KemmisS. (1986). Becoming critical. Education, knowledge and action research.
London, UK:
Deakin University Press.
26.
LarreaM. (2018).
Changing universities through action research: The dilemma of scope in pluralistic environments. Action Research. Epub ahead of print 21 February 2018. doi: 10.1177/1476750318757851
27.
LasswellH. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds), The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method (pp. 3–16). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
28.
LundyP.McGovernM. (2006).
The ethics of silence: Action research, community ‘truth-telling’ and post-conflict transition in the North of Ireland. Action Research,
4(1), 49–64.
29.
MoelinoI.FisherL. (2003). Research as mediation: Linking participatory action research to environmental conflict management in East Nusa, Tenggara, Indonesia.
Rome, Italy:
FAO.
30.
PantM. (2014). Participatory action research. In D. Coghlan & Brydon-Miller (Eds), The SAGE encyclopedia of action research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
31.
ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds). (2008). The SAGE handbook of AR: Participative inquiry and practice.
London, UK:
SAGE Publications.
32.
RothmanJ. (2014). Conflict management. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds), The SAGE encyclopedia of action research (pp. 174–175). London, UK: SAGE.
33.
RyleG. (1949). The concept of mind.
Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press.
34.
SchindlerG. (1993).
II: The conflict. Educational Action Research,
1(3), 457–468.
35.
SobralC. (2013).
Collaborative action-research as training strategy for conflict mediation among children. Action Researcher in Education,
4, 143–155.
