Seven quality choice points for contemporary action research

By Hilary Bradbury.

How can action researchers empower system actors in impactfully responding to our deepening eco-social crisis? How can action research be a catalyst to successfully transmute the inexhaustible resource of human creativity in all spaces—self to society—toward addressing our global problems? How can we encourage deepening clarity of choices made to navigate a middle path between responding to problems within living communities and contributing to research-based theory?

Mitigating the worst of our global problems requires action research that draws on many kinds and sources of knowledge. In fact, it requires drawing much more from diverse people on the ground, who understand the problems at hand and can offer solutions anchored in their experience of what is meaningful for them.

The aim of the seven choice points described below is to support action researchers in:

• deepening and speeding up the proliferation of good work,
• connecting local niche experiments to global reach.

1. Quality of intention and transformative purpose.

This choice point refers to the extent to which the action research insights are significant in support of transformation and—over time—contribution to a more sustainable, democratic, and equitable world. The goals of the research should be clearly stated, so too the relevance to the flourishing of persons, communities, and the wider ecology.

2. Quality of partnership.

This choice point refers to the extent to which, and means by which, stakeholders’ or system actors’ engagement and participative values are evident. Partnership exists on a continuum from consultation with system actors to stakeholders as full co-researchers. The research should clearly identify the strategies and methods that support system actors to develop a strong and authentic sense of evolution in their lives, their understandings, their practices. 

3. Quality of contribution to action research theory/practice.

This choice point refers to the extent to which researchers build on, and create explicit links to, previously published work, so that they extend practice, knowledge, and theory. A key question is what is the transformational impact of this research for the field of action research and the global community of action researchers?

4. Quality of participative methods and processes.

This choice point refers to the extent to which the action research approach ensures room for questions of “whose knowledge counts?” In addition, research is valuable if it expands the palette of innovative—including digital and creative—methods and data considered appropriate to the intentions and objectives of the researchers.

5. Quality of sustaining.

This choice point refers to the extent to which the action research offers new ideas where related practices can endure and spread as appropriate, helping to expand and deepen action in response to the urgency of transformations needed. Of particular interest is what is the researcher doing to ensure that the benefits discovered or created do not simply end? 

6. Quality of learning as developmental reflexivity.

This choice point refers to the extent to which researchers include a personal, involved, and self-critical stance on their role, their inquiry and their power/empowerment throughout the action research process, addressing the context of their research, their own identities and biases and how they might be received by participants, and what led to their involvement in this research and what they learned.

7. Quality of writing.

This choice point refers to the extent to which the language used in writing about the research engages the interested practitioner. The voices of participants in the research are expected to be included in any writing about the research. Further, the writing should include illustrations that “show” and not just “tell.”

Conclusion

The choice points described here are adapted from those written by the editors of the journal Action Research as a way of assessing papers for publication (Bradbury et al., 2025).

How are these choice points reflected in your research? How do you yoke your efforts to a commitment to inquiry that makes a positive difference? How do you work with others to determine anew the boundary lines about whose knowledge matters, whose methodology counts, and how these questions are at the root of our survival and potential thriving as a learning species? Are there additional choice points that you would add? How do you deal with the inevitability of falling short of the ideals, yet remain committed and engaged in learning along the way?

Reference: 

Bradbury, H., Divecha, S., Bartels, K., Friedman, V., Apgar, M., Wheeler, J., Bivens, F., Hirasawa, T., Ho, D., Wittmeyer, J. and Pizzolati, M. (2025). Seven quality choicepoints for ARJ: Ambition is welcome! Action Research, 23, 1: 3-7. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503241306927

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biography: Hilary Bradbury PhD is a scholar-practitioner focused on the human and organizational dimensions of creating healthy communities. Her work emphasizes participatory action research, developmental reflexivity, and social learning to address eco-social challenges. She is Editor-in-Chief of the Action Research Journal (Sage), and founder of Action Research Plus Foundation (AR+) which supports global initiatives with educator-change leaders in sustainability transformations. Having been professor of organization psychology for over two decades in the USA, Hilary is now based in Ireland.