Dilemmas in cross-cultural action research

Abstract

Studying other cultures is often regarded as an exploitative activity. All too often, Western researchers from wealthy institutions make objects of people and practices in foreign cultures in ways which more obviously serve the advancement of Western academic careers than the interests of the people studied. ‘Cross-cultural action research’, ‘participatory (action) research’ and parallel movements like ‘action anthropology’ were methodological efforts to try to make Western researchers’ work more responsive to the concerns of people in other cultures. These participatory action research efforts addressed some of the more obvious concerns about exploitation, but raise another round of even more complex issues which are still methodological and which cannot be separated from the content of the programs in which the research activity occurs. Though participatory action research has roots in both First and Third World contexts (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988b; Fals Borda and Rahman, 1991) the contents with which it is engaged (such as medicine, agriculture, health education, and education generally) tend to be Western in their orientation. Participatory action researchers argue that provided relationships between programme participants are openly and explicitly dialogical with commitments to symmetry and reciprocity in discourse, practice and social organization, then that is the best which can be done to offset the potential danger of Western cultural imperialism. Further, they argue that this ‘best’ is a superior moral alternative to staying at one’s desk in the academy.