Critique, Advocacy, and Dissemination: I’ve Got the Data and the Findings, Now What?



While any of the action methods overviewed so far can be considered appropriate for conducting advocacy research, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Action research as social justice research becomes advocacy when the project extends beyond data collection and analysis to answer research questions that also change the current status of conditions impacting teaching, learning, and working. Here, ethics are of the utmost importance, and reciprocity between researcher and participants is emphasized through dialogically based research methods to avoid exploitation. This chapter addresses strategies and avenues for using action research as a path for change and advocacy, drawing upon Augusto Boal’s participatory theater strategies for difficult dialogues, in that a focus on ethics involves mutually educative dialogue, reciprocal reflexivity, and intersubjectivity (Alexander & Mohanty, 2010; Boal, 1985, 1992; Brouwer, Mulder, Nigten, & Martz, 2005; Butler, 2005; Dill & Zambrana, 2009; Fischer, 2010; Lykes & Coquillon, 2006).


Social Justice Participatory Action Research African Woman Information Communication Technology Transformative Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acuff, J. B. (2011). Looking through kaleidoscope: Prisms of self and LGBTQ youth identity. Visual Culture & Gender, 6, 49–59.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, M. J., & Mohanty, C. (2010). Cartographies of knowledge and power: Transnational feminism as radical praxis. In A. L. Swarr & R. Nagar (Eds.), Critical transnational feminist praxis (pp. 23–45). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boal, A. (1985). Theatre of the oppressed (C. A. & M.-O. Leal McBride, Trans.). New York, NY: Theatre Communications Group. (Original work Teatro del oprimido y otras poéticas. New York, NY: Urizen Books, 1979)Google Scholar
  4. Boal, A. (1992). Games for actors and non-actors (A. Jackson, Trans.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brouwer, J., Mulder, A., Nigten, A., & Martz, L. (2005). Understanding interactive practice as research. Science as Culture, 15(10), 85–88.Google Scholar
  6. Buskens, I., & Webb, A. (Eds.). (2009). African women & ICTs: Investigating technology, gender and empowerment. New York, NY: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (2005). Giving an account of oneself. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chatterton, P., Fuller, D., & Routledge, P. (2007). Relating action to activism: Theoretical and methodological reflections. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place (pp. 216–222). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Chick, N., & Hassel, H. (2009). “Don’t hate me because I’m virtual”: Feminist pedagogy in the online classroom. Feminist Teacher, 19(3), 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Mineloa, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  12. Dill, T. B., & Zambrana, R. (2009). Emerging intersections: Race, class and gender in theory, policy and practice. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eisenhauer, J. (2010). “Bipolar makes me a bad mother”: Performative dialogue about representations of motherhood. Visual Culture & Gender, 6, 28–34.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, C. (2010). Consciousness and conscience: Feminism, pragmatism and the potential for radical change. Studies in Social Justice, 4(1), 67–85.Google Scholar
  15. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. GRACE Network. (2009). Transforming our gendered world through research-informed action. Retrieved from Scholar
  17. Keifer-Boyd, K. (2010). restage <deep breadth> activist art/disruptive technologies. Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 30, 38–48.Google Scholar
  18. Keifer-Boyd, K. (2011). African women & ICTs: Investigating technology, gender and empowerment [Book review]. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 12(1), 212–217.Google Scholar
  19. Keifer-Boyd, K. (2012). Feminist Web 2.0 pedagogy: Collaborations that sustain difference. In C. Bitzer, S. Collingwood, A. Quintana, & C. Smith (Eds.), Feminist cyberspaces: Pedagogies in transition (pp. 251–272). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
  20. Krumer-Nevo, M. (2009). From voice to knowledge: Participatory action research, inclusive debate and feminism. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(3), 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within the postmodern. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar
  22. Lather, P. (2004). Critical inquiry in qualitative research: Feminist and poststructural perspectives; science “after truth.” In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 203–216). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lykes, M. B., & Coquillon, E. (2006). Participatory and action research and feminisms: Towards transformative praxis. In S. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 297–326). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Naples, N. A. (2003). Feminism and method: Ethnography, discourse analysis, and activist research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Paatela-Nieminen, M. (2008). Intertextual method for art education applied in Japanese paper theatre: A study on discovering intercultural differences. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 27(1), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parameswaran, R. (2008). Reading the visual, tracking the global: Postcolonial feminist methodology and the chameleon codes of resistance. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln & L. Tuhiwai Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indige¬nous methodologies (pp. 407–428). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Philbin, M. (Ed.). (1985). The ribbon: A celebration of life. Ashville, NC: Larks Book.Google Scholar
  30. Picher, M.-C. (2007). Democratic process and the Theater of the Oppressed. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 116, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Picher, M.-C. (n.d.). The Theater of the Oppressed Laboratory. Retrieved from
  32. Reed, C. (2011). Art and homosexuality: A history of ideas. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Schoen, S. (2007). Action research: A developmental model of professional social¬ization. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(5), 211–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weir, A. (2008). Global feminism and transformative identity politics. Hypatia, 23(4), 110–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recommended Readings

  1. Agnello, M. F. (2007). Public understanding to political voice: Action research and generative curricular practices in issues and reform. Social Studies, 98(5), 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blair, K., Gajjala, R., & Tulley, C. (Eds.). (2009). Webbing cyberfeminist practice: Communities, pedagogies, and social action (pp. 1–19). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex.” New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, J., & Spivak, G. C. (2007). Who sings the nation-state? Language, politics, belonging. London: Seagull Books.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, J., & Weed, E. (2011). The question of gender: Joan W. Scott’s critical feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, A., & Groundwater-Smith, S. (2007). An ethical approach to practitioner research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, S. (2004). Ecology and ethics in participatory collaborative action research: An argument for the authentic participation of students in educational research. Educational Action Research, 12(3), 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 93, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glenny, G. (2005). The ethics of intervention. Support for Learning, 20(1), 12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodnough, K. (2008). Dealing with messiness and uncertainty in practitioner research: The nature of participatory action research. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(2), 431–458.Google Scholar
  11. He, M. F., & Phillon, J. (Eds.). (2008). Personal~passionate~participatory inquiry into social justice in education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Hollingsworth, S. (Ed.). (1997). International action research: A casebook for educational reform. New York, NY: Falmer.Google Scholar
  13. Knight, W. B. (2007). Entangled social realities: Race, class, and gender; a triple threat to the academic achievement of black females. Visual Culture & Gender, 2, 24–38.Google Scholar
  14. Knight, W. B. (2011). StoryCorps interview. Retrieved from Scholar
  15. Lal, J. (1999). Situating locations: The politics of self, identity, & other in living and writing the text. In S. Hesse-Biber, C. Gilmartin, & R. Lydenberg (Eds.), Feminist approaches to theory and methodology: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 100–125). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Social Justice Research, journal published by Springer, Vol. 1 (1987)-Vol. 24 (2011). Retrieved from Scholar
  18. Spry, T. (2009). Bodies of/as evidence in autoethnography. International Review of Qualitative Research, 1(4), 603–610.Google Scholar
  19. Young, I. M. (2003). Lived body versus gender: Reflections on social structure and subjectivity. In R. N. Fiore & H. L. Nelson (Eds.), Recognition, responsibility, and rights: Feminist ethics and social theory (pp. 3–18). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sheri R. Klein 2012

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations