A note on Action Research: for Housing Studies student

A note on Action Research: for Housing Studies student

 

Highlight 5 main ideas of the research strategy of action research, in the context of the study of Research Methods in Housing Studies. Also describe the main action research phases of two main strands of Action Research that are more relevant to the Research Methods field of Housing Studies.

Action research is a cyclical, practice-oriented research strategy: researchers and stakeholders jointly identify a real problem, intervene, study the effects, and use the learning to improve both practice and theory. In Housing Studies, it is especially useful where housing problems are embedded in residents’ lived experience, local institutions, and policy implementation.

Five main ideas

1.    Research is directed at practical improvement.
The purpose is not only to describe housing conditions or policy failures, but to produce usable knowledge that helps improve housing services, estate management, resident participation, affordability responses, or neighbourhood conditions. Action research explicitly links knowledge generation to change in the setting where the problem occurs.

2.    The process is cyclical and iterative.
Rather than following a single linear sequence from data collection to findings, action research proceeds through repeated cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. Each cycle refines the intervention and deepens understanding of the housing issue.

3.    Participants are co-researchers, not merely subjects.
Residents, tenants, housing officers, community organisations, planners, and policymakers can help define the problem, collect evidence, interpret findings, and decide on action. This is particularly important in housing research, where “expert” definitions of problems may differ sharply from residents’ everyday experiences.

4.    Context and reflexivity are central.
Housing problems are shaped by local tenure arrangements, estate histories, household circumstances, institutional rules, and power relations. Researchers must therefore reflect on their own role, assumptions, and influence on the setting, while interpreting findings in context.

5.    Multiple methods are commonly combined.
Because action research must both understand a situation and evaluate an intervention, it often uses mixed methods: interviews, focus groups, household surveys, participant observation, documents, and monitoring data. In housing studies, this can connect residents’ accounts with administrative or estate-level evidence.

Two relevant strands

The two strands most relevant to Research Methods in Housing Studies are practical/action research and participatory action research (PAR). Both use iterative cycles, but they differ in who leads the research and how power is shared.

Strand	Main orientation	Typical housing-studies use
Practical action research	A researcher or practitioner works with stakeholders to improve a specific practice or service.	Testing a new tenant-engagement procedure, estate-maintenance response, or housing-advice workflow.
Participatory action research (PAR)	Community members share substantial control over the research agenda, evidence, interpretation, and action.	Investigating estate redevelopment, rental insecurity, or neighbourhood regeneration with residents as co-researchers.

Practical action research phases

This strand follows the classic plan–act–observe–reflect spiral associated with Kemmis and McTaggart.

1.    Plan: Define a concrete housing-practice problem, review relevant evidence, involve key stakeholders, and design an intervention. For example, a housing manager and researcher may design a revised procedure for handling repair complaints in a public rental estate.

2.    Act: Implement the planned intervention in the real housing setting, while keeping the implementation systematic and documented.

3.    Observe: Collect evidence on what changed—such as complaint resolution times, resident satisfaction, staff responses, or unintended effects—using interviews, records, observation, or short surveys.

4.    Reflect: Analyse the results with stakeholders, identify what worked and why, revise the intervention, and plan the next cycle. The cycle may continue until a satisfactory improvement is achieved.

Participatory action research phases

PAR gives residents and community groups a stronger role throughout the process. A common PAR sequence includes building relationships, jointly choosing questions, collecting and analysing data, feeding back findings, and acting for change.

1.    Build trust and define the issue: Researchers get to know the community, establish agreements, and let residents identify priority housing concerns—for example, overcrowding, estate safety, redevelopment impacts, or poor maintenance.

2.    Co-design questions and methods: Residents and researchers agree the research questions and appropriate methods, such as tenant diaries, household surveys, walking interviews, focus groups, or photovoice.

3.    Collect and analyse data together: Community researchers help gather evidence and interpret patterns, combining lived experience with survey, interview, or documentary data.

4.    Feed back and validate findings: Results are presented back to participants and wider stakeholders, allowing residents to check, challenge, and refine the interpretation.

5.    Act, evaluate, and expand the cycle: The group uses the findings to pursue change—such as advocacy, a pilot service, a community plan, or engagement with a housing authority—then evaluates the action and begins a further cycle.

Why it fits Housing Studies

Action research suits Housing Studies because housing is both a research topic and a field of practice: residents experience policy through allocation rules, rents, repairs, estate management, regeneration, and tenure security. Its emphasis on collaboration, context, and iterative improvement makes it valuable for studies that aim to produce both credible evidence and practical housing change.

 

Provide 3 academic references related to our discussion here, in Harvard reference format.

Here are three relevant academic references in Harvard style:

1.    Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. and Nixon, R. (2014) The action research planner: doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer.

2.    Thurber, A., Collins, L., Greer, M., McKnight, D. and Thompson, D. (2020) ‘Resident experts: the potential of critical participatory action research to inform public housing research and practice’, Action Research, 18(2), pp. 262–280. doi:10.1177/1476750317725799.

3.    Wates, N. (2021) ‘Learning through building: participatory action research and collaborative housing’, Housing Studies, 36(8), pp. 1225–1244. doi:10.1080/02673037.2020.1732880.

Note: The first reference is the principal methodological source for the action-research cycle of planning, acting, observing and reflecting; the second and third connect participatory action research directly to public and collaborative housing research.