AEERSpring08 TEACHING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH: A HUNGARIAN EXPERIENCE Eszter Kelemen and Bálint Balázs, St. István University, Gödöll!, Hungary Participatory Action Research was of- fered as an elective course for graduate students of sociology by the Environmen- tal Social Science Research Group (ESSRG) at the Eötvös Loránd Univer- sity, Budapest, Hungary. Participants were fascinated by fieldwork, however classwork activity and end of course feedback was contradictory which raised several dilemmas, extending from how PAR classwork activities and fieldwork should be balanced, through how much freedom should be given to students dur- ing fieldwork, to how the PAR course could be adapted to a specific university culture. The aim of this paper is to share our personal reflections upon the first PAR elective course in Hungary in the light of the PAR literature on teaching and learning integrated into the wider context of Hungarian higher education system. Introduction Participatory action research, a methodology incorporating subjects in the research and evaluation, results to transformation in the lives of those involved. The approach is gaining recognition in academic cir- cles but is usually limited to specialised learning envi- ronments (Levin, M. – Greenwood, D. 2001). One se- mester’s experience teaching this approach for human ecologists and sociologists are described, focusing on challenges encountered in planning PAR courses. Traditional forms of classroom education and academic research are in change. Teachers/researchers (as doers) and students/stakeholders (as subjects) are getting closer and sharing roles, as it is being recog- nized that better understanding of phenomena necessi- tates discovering and grasping the different perspec- tives (Roth W-M. et al. 2002; Felt et al. 2004). Critical and action oriented approach gains growing impor- tance in both education and research, and under the umbrella of Participatory Action Research, these two strands can be integrated. Teaching action researchers acknowledge that “the road to action research also re- quired changes in our teaching practices” (Brydon- Miller, M. et al, 2003. p. 19) in order to disseminate the core values and assumptions of this methodology; and in the same time applying PAR methodology in higher education can transform universities into real learning organizations in contradiction to recent teach- ing structures based on one-way communication and separation between teachers and students (Levin, M. – Greenwood, D. 2001). This paper presents the first attempt of a Hun- garian research group (ESSRG) on teaching PAR – the methodology to which researchers are committed to using during their fieldwork. The aim is to share and discuss the reflections of the lecturer team upon the course in order to provide useful experiences to others interested in the topic and simultaneously to improve our teaching activity. The first part of the paper pre- sents the Hungarian traditions of participatory research and its recent situation in the higher education system. In the second part, we describe the methodology of the course, which is followed by a short summary on how the semester passed. The third part of the paper dis- cusses the most important questions raised by the se- mester, while in conclusion we attempt to connect our experiences to the special characteristics of Hungarian higher education system. Hungarian context: traditions and recent changes Central European societies always fostered a specific approach in understanding social life or de- picting society and this persistent feature of Central European culture could often and easily be identified as an exotic flavour by Western social science. The insistence on the difference of social experience, as Wessely claims, was the social problem-oriented pur- suit of social science which did not let a discipline pre- scribe the problems and acceptable methods of re- search, but attempted to respond to the challenges that reached it from the social environment (Wessely, A. 1996). During the socialist regime facilitating a solu- tion to social problems was an exclusive reserve of politics without any chance of public participation. The ruling party attempted to use social science to contrib- ute to the renovation of socialism, thus scholarly effort focused on alternative problem definitions. The PAR approach was not possible in Hungary or in the social- ist countries, since the political system tried to hide the 30 Anthropology of East Europe Review Volume 26, No. 2 Page 30 weaknesses of its programs and to repress public par- ticipation. The regime change facilitated the adoption of Western paradigms and research patterns, but did not require the wholesale redefinition of the social sci- ences (Némedi, D. – Róbert, 2002). Fifteen years after the system transformation it appears that the breakthrough for action research in Hungary is yet to come: starting points are sporadic, thematic orientation is narrow and the funding for a decisive institutionalization is not available. Oriented towards academic or business excellence the structures of Hungarian higher education are still rather exclusive and rigid, favouring a conservative pedagogical cul- ture, lacking social responsibility, thus participatory action research is rarely available in Hungarian higher education as an elective course. A recent review of the literature on the Hungarian Higher Education system revealed that there is very little relevant information, or observation on service learning, action research, or community-based learning in this literature (Kozma J. – Galambos, R. 2005). The structural changes in the Hungarian higher education system attempting to modernise and adapt to the changing social and economic environ- ment (mass education, financial problems, and the pri- vatization and internationalization of higher education) resulted in an expansion (the number of students in higher education has doubled, and new higher educa- tion institutions and programs were developed). Still, within this changing socio-economic and cultural envi- ronment there remained several favourable factors within the Hungarian higher education initiating an action research and learning environment (Kozma J. – Galambos, R. 2005): • there is a growing awareness of new collabo- rations between universities and social actors in their surroundings which provides possibili- ties for students to engage in community based or action research activities (volunteering and civil activities of students); • this is more and more often realized through new higher educational programs especially in the social science education (Migration Studies, Action Anthropology, Cultural Anthropological Gypsy Studies, Environmental Social Science) with a curriculum focusing on learning by do- ing and reflective action learning; • courses use previously lacking effective teach- ing methods (such as action-oriented ap- proaches, problem-based learning, experiential learning, active learning, etc.) in professional education and training. Against this background the course offered in the social science faculty of the Eötvös Loránd Univer- sity, Budapest, Hungary aimed at engaging students of the human ecology educational program in a commu- nity based research project with a strong experiential learning approach in developing the knowledge and skills required to be an effective action researcher. The shared expertise of teachers (with a background in economics, sociology, history) and students coming from diverse disciplines (from sociology, economics, political science, through human ecology, biology, to media studies) required a special balance in experien- tial and lecturing presentation as well as the mix of training to academic analytical requirements and to the use of experiential learning and self-development exer- cises. The next section presenting our teaching meth- odology built on classroom exercises (research skills, interview techniques) and fieldwork exercises (devel- oping self- and other-awareness) attempts to offer some valuable insights for teachers of action research. Teaching methodology Participatory Action Research was offered as an elective course for graduate students of sociology within the Human Ecology Major at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest by members of ESSRG research group as visiting lecturers. The lecturing team con- sisted of one senior lecturer and four Ph.D. students from which two were men and three women. All mem- bers are experienced (although to a different extent) in field research and engaged in participatory methods. The diversity of the lecturing team offered good oppor- tunity for co-teaching through which daily tasks were shared and continuous (self) reflection became possi- ble. The initial structure of the seminar was de- signed in a way that matches researchers’ professional commitment to the characteristics of the faculty and the university. As being visiting lecturers at a research seminar, we could choose the methodology to teach – this means that there was not a specific need for par- ticipatory, critical research, but the subject of the course (PAR) was only our choice. The main goal of the course was to introduce students into participatory research in order to widen the palette of known meth- ods of beginner sociologists/researchers and thus to offer them the possibility to apply a different approach than usual. Adapting to the university culture and cur- riculum, we did not want to omit the theoretical back- ground for research methodology, the preparing for fieldwork by discussing techniques and the fieldwork itself and the possibility for reflection. However, we had to divide these activities into two semesters be- cause of the shortness of time. Based on these principles the structure of the seminar was initially designed as follows. The course started with the discussion of the main concepts of and philosophy behind the PAR methods (e.g. participation, deliberation, community studies). This was followed by developing a toolbox for participatory research – 31 Anthropology of East Europe Review Volume 26, No. 2 Page 31 techniques for collecting, recording and analyzing data (observation, interviews especially appreciative in- quiry, field diary and interview summery, coding etc.) – and by discussing the traditions and limits of the methodology. In the third part, students were offered to take part in a real PAR process on community devel- opment in a marginalized small region of rural West- Hungary. This part of the course was designed in a way that in the first phase students do desk research in teams exploring the ecological, economic and social characteristics of the site, present their results and en- gage in class discussions in order to participate in de- signing the research project. In the second phase, after the desk research, two weekends were offered to stu- dents to go to the research area and conduct interviews. During their fieldwork, students worked in pairs and they were asked to make notes and interview summa- ries as inputs for data analysis. Because of the short- ness of the semester, two restrictions were applied. The first two parts of the course (discussing concepts and developing a research toolbox) and research itself ran in parallel to some extent; while the next phases of fieldwork (planning and organizing community forums in the site after analyzing data) remained to the next semester. This also means that the spiral of learning could not be fully completed during the first semester as students and teachers did not have the opportunity to see the results and reflect upon the whole research process. Teaching methods and techniques were se- lected in a manner that provides possibility for partici- pation and empowerment of students. The course was designed to create a learning community in the class by decreasing the distance between (traditionally sepa- rated) student and teacher roles. Various teaching tech- niques were applied. Students were encouraged to ac- tively participate in class debates, work in groups and share reflections on their work. Although some short blocks of lectures were built in the course, theoretical immersion was offered through readings. Members of the lecturer team provided also the possibility for con- tinuous consultation. How the semester ran… During the semester, the lecturer team had to continuously adapt to the given situation and change the structure of the course according to feedback from students and personal self-reflection of lecturers. Students seemed to be interested in the topic and eager to take part in a participatory research from the beginning of the semester. However, it became clear soon that they had only little time to prepare for class and even to come regularly and in time. During the class, they were quite inactive, and encouraging them to participate in class debates or group work was difficult. As neither home readings nor class engage- ment achieved their initial function, the proportion of lectures has to be risen (instead of discussions) in order to provide students the most important concepts and techniques. We also tried to figure out playful exercises (such as mock interviews in pairwork) to motivate them to actively contribute to the class. Nevertheless, for this modification the course lost its originally planned character of decreasing the distance between lecturers and students. The relatively weak interest shown by stu- dents in theoretical questions motivated us to empha- size more the practical side of the subject. This change in the proportion of conceptual and practical issues was also reasonable from the aspect of students’ prepared- ness: as students came from different specialties and years (from the 2nd to the 5th years at university), their research experience and skills varied largely, which required balancing the knowledge level of the group. During the desk research, it also became clear that students were not accustomed to working in teams. To explore the present economic, social and ecological situation of the field and to find interconnections be- tween particular problems, they were asked to form three groups (one for the economic, the social and the ecological analysis), to study the relevant literature and to present the results of their desk research in the class. Every group had a personal consultant from the lec- turer team, who provided the basic literature for the group. However, students were unable to share the tasks equally, to manage time and to form a common standpoint on the topic – the groupwork ended in par- tial results and personal frustration on how to punish free riders and reward hard-workers at group level. These experiences about students’ engage- ment forced us to continuously reduce class require- ments on the one hand, and make the fieldwork op- tional on the other (initially fieldwork was included in the end of term evaluation). Although we think the most important part of the semester is the field re- search through which students can undergo experien- tial learning, we believed also that successful participa- tory research necessitates commitment and taking re- sponsibility on behalf of the researchers. Hence, the option to skip fieldwork functioned as a filter: only those students could come who assumed to work on weekends and to cover a small part of the costs (that is, made sacrifices for participate in the research process). Students who participated in field research were completely fascinated by that. Long discussions started every evening during our stay in the site that referred to the local problems, the interviewees, the used methods (appreciative enquiry) and the role of the researchers. Students were enthusiastic not only in the field but also in the class after the weekends spent by interviewing – they were ready to share their experi- ences with others who had not come, which gave the opportunity for real self-reflection. 32 Anthropology of East Europe Review Volume 26, No. 2 Page 32 After these good experiences on field research and the former difficulties in discussing conceptual issues, students’ end of term feedback was quite sur- prising, as they missed the theoretical introduction and the grounded exposition of the used methodology. Among other reasons this forced the lecturer team to redesign the course to the next semester – to focus on theoretical background and take away fieldwork from the class (make it completely optional and independent from course attendance and offered only committed students), to reduce the lecturer staff, and to strengthen further the role of community learning. Raised dilemmas In order to improve our teaching skills we have to go further in self-reflection and try to under- stand the reasons for the dilemmas raised by the course. In this section, we mainly focus on issues closely related to teaching practices instead of personal questions. Teaching efficiency For the research team this was the first occa- sion when five of us collaborated in a course. This situation had many advantages like sharing tasks, being flexible consultants, designing classes together or re- flecting upon every lesson, however we also had to develop an adequate division of labour. We hope to have avoided the danger of confusing students through unclear roles by defining one senior lecturer while naming the others supporters. Nevertheless, one ques- tion remained open: to what extent the course can be efficient – that is, whether the energy input of five lec- turers is used efficiently. Our semester resulted in four committed students (from appr. fifteen), which does not seem to be an outstanding proportion – this was the reason for reducing the lecturer staff to two person in the following semester. However, in general the answer to this question must be context dependent. Motivating students The description of the course indicates that motivating students was a central question during the whole semester. We experienced already from the very beginning that students had a completely different cul- ture of work (always being late, free riding, cramming etc.) which stemmed from the characteristics of the faculty and the university (no community places in the university building, chaotic schedule, disappointed professors). It is not surprising, that students embedded in this environment could not utilize the possibility for challenging authorities provided by participatory teaching methods because at the same time they should have taken responsibility for their own learning and also the quality of their knowledge (Levin M. – Greenwood, D. 2001), which is an unfamiliar phe- nomenon in this system. We think that the extent of students’ involvement depends on their personal inter- est and critical approach towards existing structures, and that those students who live an active civil life are more responsive to the PAR methodology than others are. Freedom of students The question of students’ independence in class/research decisions refers to the former topic on motivation. Without taking responsibility for their own learning we cannot expect them to be responsible for others (e.g. locals) participating in the same action research process. Nevertheless, in a field research con- ducted in a small marginalized rural community re- searchers play the important role of initiators and me- diators, thus the success of the action (in our case a community forum) but sometimes complete relation- ships depend on them. When students do not seem to participate in former discussion of research design and show only a few signs of awareness, a much stricter monitoring of their fieldwork (for example interview- ing in pair with a supporter) can assure the quality of the research process. Adaptation to the education system We also had to cope with the dilemma of how to adapt our PAR course to the specific Hungarian edu- cation system and university culture. During the se- mester, we faced the difficulty that fieldwork is basi- cally unknown in gradual sociology education, stu- dents did not develop a rudimentary knowledge on qualitative research methods, and are socialized to the traditional formal teaching system (professors on the pulpit). In these circumstances lecturers really have to “expect the unexpected” (Glanz, 2003 – cited by Dick, B. 2004. pp. 433) and to be ready for continuously modifying the curriculum. It is clear that theory, tech- niques and fieldwork cannot be condensed into one semester and that the recent education system does not really support continuity in courses. However, every small change in teaching methods can contribute to the slow transformation of the higher education system through changing students’ attitudes. Ethics standards In a participatory action research process con- secutive steps of the research cannot be fully planned as a wide range of suprises can arise in any moment. Therefore, it is hard to create an overall code of ethics and standards that contains solutions to every problem (Collins, S. 2004). Based on this idea, we determined only the major principles to pursue during the semes- ter: challenging the traditional roles of teachers and 33 Anthropology of East Europe Review Volume 26, No. 2 Page 33 students (giving the possibility of contributing to the whole research process through independent deci- sions); learning by doing (students’ active participation in field research); reciprocity (each party can contrib- ute to the learning process and gains different pro- ceeds); and create an open atmosphere to encourage community learning. However, the above described unexpected events and involuntary changes in the cur- riculum made difficult to follow these principles. It was hard – and remained an unsolved question – to redefine power relations between students and teachers as most of the students focussed on end of term credit scores instead of real learning, and as we did not rec- ognize that by becoming mentors or coaches (which would have been possible as five of us participated in the course) we may have solved this problem. Conclusion We conclude that the presented PAR course was successful in using the experiential approach for teaching the people side of action research. Of course, the lecturer team could not redeem the world during the semester, but could achieve personal changes and action learning with a small group of graduate stu- dents. Four committed students from the class applied for new courses in the spring semester led by members of the ESSRG team. Two of the graduate students par- ticipated in the field research further on, which indi- cates their engagement in participatory research and acknowledgment of participatory teaching methods. In this sense, our PAR course seems to comply with one of the most important aim of participatory research and learning – the empowerment of participants (even if just a few of them). However, this also implies that teaching PAR – at least in Hungary – can be built on mainly individuals’ special abilities. Members of the lecturer team have the im- pression that teaching PAR methodology effectively in the chosen university was a bit premature. The contex- tual factors strengthening this assumption can be grouped in four: 1. The context of higher education in Hungary: insti- tutional frames of teaching participatory method- ology using participatory teaching methods are not yet formed; 2. The context of the chosen university: there are significant differences between Hungarian univer- sities in teaching social science methodology, but some are unexpectedly conservative in their peda- gogical culture without recognizing its failures; 3. The teacher/lecturer team: without the commit- ment of teachers nothing could happen in the teaching system, however teachers in themselves are not enough for transforming universities into reflective learning communities; 4. The graduate students: can well afford to engage into a community based or action research if they take responsibility for attending the class, if not, teachers will fail in applying participatory teach- ing methods. Teachers and students together can be the ini- tiators of participatory learning at universities, while the higher education structure and the university itself can make this kind of bottom-up reform only more difficult, if not impossible. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Barbara Bodorkós, Ágnes Mér! and György Pataki (members of the lec- turer team) for their valuable contributions to this pa- per. References Brydon-Miller, M. – Greenwood, D. – Maguire, P. (2003): Why action research? Action Research. Vol. 1. No. 1. 9-28. Collins, S. (2004): Ecology and Ethics in Participatory Collaborative Action Research: an argument for the authentic participation of students in educa- tional research. Educational Action Research. Vol. 12. No. 3. 347-362. Dick, B. (2004): Action research literature. Themes and trends. Action Research. Vol 2. No. 4. 425- 444. Levin, M. – Greenwood, D. (2001): Pragmatic Action Research and the Struggle to Transform Univer- sities into Learning Communities. In: Reason, P. – Bradbury, H. (Eds): Handbook of Action Re- search. London. Sage. 104-113. Némedi, D - Róbert, P (2002): Sociology – Hungary. In: Max K. – Vera S. (Eds.), Agnieszka Wennin- ger (Co-editor): Three Social Science Disci- plines in Central and Eeastern Europe: Hand- book on Economics, Political Science and Soci- ology (1989-2001), Berlin/Bonn/Budapest Roth, W. M. – Tobin, K. – Zimmermann, A. (2002): Coteaching/cogenerative dialoguing: Learning environments research as classroom praxis. Learning Environments Research. Vol. 5. No. 1. 1-28. Wessely, A (1996): The Cognitive Chance of Central European Sociology, In: M. Hadas (Ed.), Colo- nization or Partnership? Eastern Europe and Western Social Sciences. Budapest, 11-19. 34 Anthropology of East Europe Review Volume 26, No. 2 Page 34 World Wide Web pages Felt, L. F. – Rowe, P. M. – Curlew, K. (2004): Teach- ing Academic Dogs and Cats New Tricks: ‘Re- Tooling’ Senior Academic. Paper presented Sept. 1-2, 2004. Researching the Voluntary Sec- tor Conference. Sheffield, England. Retrieved M a y 4 , 2 0 0 6 f r o m http://www.envision.ca/pdf/cura/ DogsCats.pdf Kozma J. – Galambos, R. (2005): A Critical Review of the Hungarian Literature on Service-Learning and Civic Education in Hungarian Higher Edu- cation. Retrieved March 12, 2006 from http://www.civicus.lt 35 Anthropology of East Europe Review Volume 26, No. 2 Page 35 http://www.envision.ca/pdf/cura/ http://www.envision.ca/pdf/cura/ http://www.civicus.lt http://www.civicus.lt