A Comparison between Action Research concepts and Buddhist philosophy: based on the premise of scientific experimental research approach

This article traces the parallels between action research and Buddhist philosophy with the aim of bringing the focus to reconsider the history of the conceptual development of action research. The study is initially based on the premise of scientific experimental research approach of Buddhist philosophy, through which one can argue that it is more likely comparable to action research.

Curiosity and the thirst to search for new discoveries, new knowledge and improvements brought forth research and different research methods. Since the day humans are born, they pursue new knowledge because curiosity is inherent in people’s nature. Sometimes people gain new knowledge informally and sometimes formally. The formal way to discover new knowledge is research. Depending on different methods used to pursue knowledge, different types of research methods are born to the world. We find a good deal of discussion concerning the interface between Buddhism and modern research methods especially in modern science and social science. Discussions brought forward by many scholars established a strong foundation for the emergence of this field of study towards exploring research methods found in Buddhist philosophy.

Scientific experimental research approach in Buddhist philosophy

The word ‘research’ derives from the French word recherché, meaning “to search deeply with intensity” (Rodgers and Yee, 2015: 11), with previous origins in Latin. In this sense, the Buddha’s endeavor was ‘to search’ and search for the ‘truth’ (Fernando 2008). Prince ‘Siddhartha’ renounced his luxurious life and started practicing asceticism in search of the truth.   One might rightly think that the Buddha cannot be considered a ‘researcher’ in the modern definition of the term, and he, like Socrates of the same period (Armstrong, 2007), was seeking knowledge through contemplation and observation. That is largely true; however, his voyages in the whole of the Gangetic plain (now Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Nepal and even beyond) was done not only for teaching, but also for knowledge seeking and observation (Fernando 2017). But we should not disregard the fact that he was not just seeking for knowledge but continuously questioning what he observed while collecting data and analyzing in a very systematic way. He gathered data, observed and analyzed before coming to any conclusion. Even he asked his disciples not to believe anything in blind faith or any belief induced through any bogus reasoning but very systematic and based on free thinking and evidence.

His major attempt was to understand ‘Dukka’ or suffering and try to find ‘Magga’ a way to overcome it. In clarifying how he gathered knowledge in understanding ‘Dukka’  and making others understand, Four Noble Truths or ‘Chathurārya Sathya’ should be brought into discussion. FNT is considered as the first preaching of Buddha which laid a solid foundation for his philosophy which presently found in ‘Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta’ (‘Dhāmmacākkappāvāttana-sutta’: ‘Samyutta Nikaya’:‘Sutta-pitaka’: translated by Sujato Bhikku 2018)

Fernando (2016) argues that the FNT, constitute a framework for research designing, investigation and particularly problem solving. Defining briefly the teaching of Buddha through FNT reveals, that it is fourfold such as (1) ‘Dukka’, which means knowing suffering (2) ‘Samudaya’, which means etiology of suffering; (3) ‘Nirodhya’, which means healing or cessation of suffering (4) ‘Gamini patipadarya’ (‘magga’) which means the way to eliminate suffering. Fernando (2016) argues that the ‘structure and logic’ of the FNT are parallel and epitomize research methodology. According to ‘Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta’, the order of the stages or components follows the pattern:

(1) ‘Dukkha’ – knowing suffering is there – the problem/s of research

(2) ‘Samudaya’ – identifying the cause for suffering – necessary analysis and identifying the cause/s

(3) ‘Nirodha’ – cessation of suffering – identification of the solutions

(4) ‘Magga’ – follow the way to eliminate suffering – follow the proposed pathway to achieve the solutions

The above comparative study discloses characteristic features of Buddhist philosophy as a research method. This process of finding the pathway to overcome suffering is comparable to the logic for scientific investigation introduced by John Dewey (1859 – 1952).

How John Dewey’s logic for scientific investigation comparable with FNT (Fernando 2008):

1. Identifying ‘dukka’ or sorrow as the major problem which destroys one’s happiness is ‘dukka āryasathya’: In comparison to John Dewey’s logic it is identifying the problem

2. Why ‘dukka’ exists? Or the reason/cause for ‘dukka’ is ‘samudaya āryasathya’: In comparison to John Dewey’s logic it is determining the hypothesis or reason why the problem exists.

3. Cessation of suffering or ‘dukka’ is the solution is ‘dukka nirodha sāthya’- In comparison to John Dewey’s logic it is identification the solution.
4. In terminating suffering follow the Eight Noble paths (‘Ārya āshtāāngika māārga’) is ‘dukka nirodhagāmani patipadā’ – Apply conclusions to the original hypothesis/theory.

The argument brought by Tanighchi (1994 : 31)  “The teaching of the Buddha are fourfold. He diagnosed human illness, discovered its cause, defined good health, and developed the methodology for treating and preventing illness. This formula, which is called the Four Noble Truths (‘Ariyasaccani’) in Buddhism, has a structure distinctively paralleling that of medical science: (1) diagnosis of the illness, (2) etiology of the illness, (3) healing, and (4) therapeutics for the illness” strengthens the above notion.

In reference to ‘Kālama Sutta’ (‘Sutta Pitaka’:‘Anguttara Nikaya’: ‘Sutta Pitaka’: translated by Sujato Bhikku 2018) or ‘Charter of free inquiry’ proves that Buddha was not in support with any dogmatic premises, blind faith or any belief induced through any bogus reasoning but very systematic and based on free thinking and evidence .

Kalamas asked the Buddha: “Sir, there are some recluses and ‘brahmanas’ who visit ‘Kesaputta’. They explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others’ doctrines. Then come other recluses and ‘brahmanas’, and they too, in their turn, explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others’ doctrines. But, for us. Sir, we have always doubt and perplexity as to who among these venerable recluses and ‘brahmanas’ spoke the truth, and who spoke falsehood.” (Rahula, 1978: 2)

Buddha said: “Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, not by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea: ‘this is our teacher” (Rahula,1978:3).

Though one doesn’t notice any research question from ‘Kālāmas’, what Buddha advised them was to research explicating one’s understanding while being circumspect, rejecting any dogma, removing any blind faith but depend on independent investigation and verification.

What he said was: don’t give final authority to what is written in books or what is advocated by philosophers. You have to test them through your own experience and contemplation. What he mentioned as ‘contemplation’ in the context of the present day research can be considered as empirical investigation and scientific verification of propositions (Fernando 2008).

‘Paticcasamuppada’ or ‘dependent origination’ too cannot be disregarded in the effort of arguing on behalf of the above notion. In ‘Paticcasamuppada’ (‘Vibhanga Sutta’: ‘Samyutta Nikaya’: ‘Sutta Pitaka’: translated by Sujato Bhikku 2018) in other words, dialectical causality or dependent origination, Buddha preaches;

“Imasmim sati, idam hoti. Imass uppādadam uppajjati.
Imasmim āsati, idam na hoti. Imassa nirodha, idam nirujjhati.” 

“When this is, that is. From the arising of this, that arises; when this is not, that is not. From the cessation of this that ceases.”

We have to pause here a while to note the beautiful argument Buddha made to define causality. This argument creates an excellent scientific outlook for his teachings. It is noteworthy that dependent origination is immensely based on logical reasoning finding the cause for any effect. Snyder (2006:57) the causal reasoning Buddha preached is compatible with natural science and social science investigation:

“Natural and social scientists have always looked to multiple causes as rarely does any effect result mostly from one cause. They use control groups and other techniques to isolate possible causes to at least narrow their theories down to fewer possible explanations. This is fully compatible to the principle of Dependent Origination.”

Action research concepts in Buddhist philosophy  

Action research (AR) is different from ‘traditional’ research methods.

The first difference is improvement and development of the existing social patterns after explanation. AR concerns interventions of continuous improvement of existing social actions (Schmuck 2009). This idea is further justified by Aileen Ferrance (2000) stating that Action research or administrative inquiry is a reflective process of intentionally engaging in the systematic study of practices in order to find ways to improve or change based on the results. Schmuck (2009) argues that AR seeks for foster development and planned change while traditional research seeks to build a body of accumulated knowledge. It is a well-known fact that Kurt Lewin is credited for coining the term AR in 1944. Alfred. J.  Marrow (1969), in his book ‘The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin’, mentions how Lewin studied about emotions and feelings of humans and the reasons for their behavioral changes. He expected a planned change in the existing society developing self-respect, self-esteem, personality, finding reasons for resisting for change, developing a more scientific understanding of the causes of prejudice and developing more reliable insights into their own attitudes and values are among the major aspects he focused on through AR. It is satisfactory to notice the effort taken to evidence that AR on development rather than knowledge.

Buddhist doctrine is an ensemble of systematic guidelines to liberate one from suffering, self-improvement and development in a holistic manner. Buddha did a systematic study of practice to find ways to improve or change the existing social pattern based on the results. This affinity Buddhism has with action research will be helpful in proving that Buddha conducted research and simultaneously he lead people to conduct their own research in finding solutions for their own problems related to facets such as body, feelings, perceptions, emotions, interpretations and evaluations, holistic understanding, spiritual development and improvement. On grounds it can be argued that Buddha played a major role, before the term AR was coined in the western world in the 20^th century.

The difference between traditional research methods and AR can be discussed in relation to the aspects of perspectives and experimentation. Schmuck (2009) says that AR aims to collect trustworthy data on the multiple perspectives of particular individuals and groups but traditional research aims to obtain objective data from a representative sample of subjects. He further explains that AR focuses on Experimental based research type while Carr (2006) discusses it as a social scientific research method. Experiments done by Kurt Lewin and his collogues reveals how AR emerged as a research method with experimental use with potential in the social sciences. The Baker- Dembo-Lewin study of dedifferentiation as a consequence of frustration, aimed to determine what the behavioral effects of frustration are and how they are produced (Marrow 1969,p.120). The autocracy-democracy study was the second of the note-worthy inquiries of this period that demonstrated Lewin’s bold experimental design. It was a study to compare autocratic and democratic leadership of children’s groups conducted by Ronald Lippitt and Ralph White in 1938.

The third crucial experiment carried out by the Lewin group, the so called “Food habits study” came about as a result of America’s entry into World War II and of the friendship that had developed between Lewin and anthropologist Margaret Mead (Marrow 1969,p.128).

Lewin devised many experiments, as above, for resistant phenomena such as anger, conflict, decision, frustration intention, satiation and substitution.  And the Lippitt-White studies were steps towards what came to be called “action research” – the experimental use of social sciences to advance the democratic process.

The above review evidence that AR is an experimental based social research type. Before coining the term AR Kurt Lewin engaged in several experimental social research in mass scale. Finally he understood that the type of research conducted were experimental based social science which can be called Action Research.

Discussing Buddhism as an experimental based social research type is evidence in the above section. Buddhist experimental approach supports one to find out where he or she actually is in   social, cultural, economic and ecological complexities. At the same time, giving freedom to shape one’s own spiritual or religious biographies is another experimental characteristic of Buddhism. An attribute of experimental Buddhism is its rational and keen observance of practice, grounded in everyday life. Therefore it is very clear that Buddhist philosophy is a social research method which is based on experiment.

Another difference between AR and ‘traditional’ research methods is local versus universal. AR focuses on local changes and improvements. Traditional research focuses on building universal theories and valid generalizations (Schmuck 2009). Most of the AR done in the past, based on the theory of improving the standards of local communities in which progress is expected using planned activities. Lewin’s “Action Research and Minority Problem” (1946) and Wals’s “Action Research and community Problem Solving: Environmental Education in an Inner City” (1994) are research based experiments on improving individual standards which directly influence society. Marrow (1969) states that Lewin introduces his theory of the ‘person’ on which he thought he could construct a general theory that would apply to any group- family, work, religion or community. From Lewin’s point of view, group behavior is a function of both the single person and the social situation (Marrow 1969.p.171). These statements and research focus convince that AR mainly focus on changing individual behavior which lead to a change in the society.

The Noble Eight Fold Path (NEFP) ‘Ārya ashtāngika mārgaya’ or ‘magga’ (‘Vibhanga Sutta’:‘Samyutta Nikaya’: ‘Sutta Pitaka’( translated by Thanissaro Bhikku 1997) is for one’s own liberation. Buddhism speaks on the need for one to take personal responsibility to ‘liberate oneself’, which relies on his or her own ability, self-discipline and striving to improve. NEFP is the summary of the path a Buddhist should practice for liberation which consists of eight practices such as ‘sammā ditti’ right view, ‘sammā sankappa’ right resolve, ‘sammā vāāchā’ right speech, ‘sammā kammantha’ right conduct, ‘sammā āājeewa’ right livelihood, ‘sammā vāāyāma’ right effort, ‘sammā sati’ right mindfulness and ‘sammā samadhi’ right concentration. According to Buddhist teachings no one is responsible for your happiness but you. This path is summarized as ‘sīla’ or morality, which consists of eight healthy practices we can do to liberate ourselves from suffering. Therefore it can be argued that according to Buddha, first the theory of self-liberation should put in to practice, which leads to universal theory of liberation.

Pragmatism in AR, cannot be disregarded as a characteristic feature which is available in Buddhist philosophy to a great extent and a major characteristic which distinct AR from traditional research methods. In its broadest sense, pragmatism could be said to be the philosophical orientation of all Action Research. Pragmatism, meaning, thinking of or dealing with problems in a practical way, rather than by using theory or abstract principles, appears in AR to a greater extent.

Through pragmatism as a mode of inquiry, those who involve in the research process are looking to fit new pieces into their current understanding about a given phenomenon. These pieces fall into place through a process of acting and observing in the research site, and then evaluating and making sense of the results towards a given goal. Meaning is clarified progressively by examining the consequences of actions and adjusting in a continual cycle of inquiry (Stark 2014).

Journal articles: “Will the marriage between pragmatism and Buddhism last?” (2009) and “Did Buddhism anticipate pragmatism?” (1993), published by Richard P. Hayes discuss the relationship between pragmatism and Buddhism providing numerous insights and evidence. The word ‘pragmatic’ describes a person who has a practical approach to problems and matters in everyday life. The practical approach of Buddha is clearly visible in his life and his philosophy. The strong mode of inquiry he introduced in the path of searching of one’s own liberation which leads to an emancipatory social reform, shows pragmatic features to a greater extent. Though the concept of pragmatism was brought in to discussion in the 20^th century AD, it is apparent that pragmatism is available in Buddhist teachings such as ‘Paticcasamuppada’ (‘Vibhanga Sutta’: ‘Samyutta Nikaya’: ‘Sutta Pitaka’: translated by Sujato Bhikku 2018) or dialectical causality. This notion was discussed to a considerable extent in a previous section of this article.

Search for FNTs in ‘Chathurārya Sathya’ (‘Dhāmmacākkappāvāttana-sutta’: ‘Samyutta Nikaya’:‘Sutta-pitaka’: translated by Sujato Bhikku 2018), ‘Kesamutti Sutta’ or ‘Kālāma Sutta’  ‘(Anguttara Nikaya’(3.65): ‘Sutta Pitaka’: translated by Sujatho Bhikku 2018) too can be considered to show how Buddha and his teachings were pragmatic.

‘Bodhisattva’ (Buddha before the enlightenment) conducted an impressive inquiry during his search for a way for liberation. After the renunciation leading an ascetic life he experimented contemporary teachings and rigorous asceticism. He experienced, observed and examined them changing his plans continuously in a cycle of inquiry.

As a well-known fact, the young prince lived in his palace with every luxury at his command. This custom of provision of comfort and indulgence he practiced as a prince was later identified as ‘kāmasukallikānuyoga’, through which one tries to find eternal happiness. He had been enjoying this luxurious life for twenty nine years in which, there might be times he felt that this comfort and indulgence do not continue to exist whenever one has to face real life problems due to uncertainty or ‘anicca’.  In case we must not disregard the fact that, he was capable in reflecting upon the uncertainty of happiness through comfort and indulgence.

                             

 

Figure: comparison of ‘kāmasukallikānuyoga’ to action research cyclical process

According to the Buddhist literature, witnessing the four sights of an old man, a sick person, a dead body and an ascetic, made him experience the powerful spiritual feeling ‘saṁvega’ which became the immediate cause for renunciation.

In ‘Sukhamāla Sutta’(‘Sutta Pitaka’: ‘Anguttara Nikaya’, A 3.38) Buddha recounts how, the  powerful religious emotion (‘saṁvega’) overcame him as a ‘bodhisattva’ when he reflected on the true nature of life:

“Bhikshus, amidst such splendor and wealth, and because of such an exceedingly delicate life, this thought arose in me: “An ignorant ordinary person, though by nature would himself age [decay] and being unable to escape ageing [decay], feels distressed, ashamed, disgusted when seeing an old or aged person, being forgetful of himself [his own situation]. Now I, too, by nature, will age and cannot escape ageing. If, bhikkhus, when seeing an old or aged person, I were to feel distressed, ashamed, disgusted, that would not be proper for one like myself.” When I reflected thus, bhikshus, all my intoxication with youth vanished”

Again I reflected: “An ignorant ordinary person, though by nature would himself suffer disease and being unable to escape disease, feels distressed, ashamed, disgusted when seeing an ill person, being forgetful of himself. Now I, too, by nature, will suffer disease and cannot escape disease. If, bhikshus, when seeing an ill person, I were to feel distressed, ashamed, disgusted, that would not be proper for one like myself. When I reflected thus, bhikshus, all my intoxication with health vanished”.

Again I reflected: “An untutored ordinary person, though by nature would himself die and being unable to escape dying, feels distressed, ashamed, disgusted when seeing a dead person, being forgetful of himself. Now I, too, by nature will die and cannot escape dying. If, bhikshus, when seeing a dead person, I were to feel distressed, ashamed, disgusted, that would not be proper for one like myself. When I reflected thus, bhikshus, all my intoxication with life vanished”. (Piya Tan, 2003, rev 2010, http:dharmafarer.org).

It is  well-known that AR is a self-reflective cyclical enquiry followed by the participant until he or she finds the rationality and justice for a particular social situation. Prince ‘Siddhartha’ too had engaged in a similar cyclical process in search of eternal happiness through ‘kāmasukallikānuyoga’. Renunciation was the ultimate result changing his plan and starting the cyclical process of ‘aththakilamathānuyoga’ being an ascetic.

It is of interest to note the various attempts made by different scholars to establish Buddhist philosophy as a research method. These attempts can be considered as the major premise for the study done by Perera, Perera & Kodituwakku (2011) revealing AR concepts available in Buddhist philosophy. According to them, modern action research concepts can be found in the entire Buddhist doctrine.

 

 

Reference

Ferrence, E. (2000). Action Research. Northeast and Island Regional Educational Laboratory. Brown University.

Kindon, S.L., Pain, R. and Kesby, M. (eds) (2007) Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Places. Routledge UK. ISBN 978-0415599764.

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (2000) “Participatory action research”, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Sage, CA, pp. 567–605.

Kochendorfer, L. (1994). Becoming a reflective teacher. Washington, DC: National Education Association

Lewin, K. (1947) Group Decision and Social Change. In: Newcomb, T. and Hartley, E., Eds., Readings in Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 197-211.

Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics. Harper and Row, NY. ISBN 978-0285647190, pp. 82, 202-6.

Lewin, K. (1946) Action research and Minority Problems: journal of Social Issues,2,34-46, 34-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x

Marrow, A. J. (1969) The Practical Theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin, Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York, London.

Rahula, W.S. (1974). What the Buddha Taught.  A Collection of illustrative texts translated from the original Pali. New York, Grove Press. ISBN 0-8021-3031-3

Soma Thera. (1981). Kalama Sutta (translated from the Pali) : The Buddha’s Charter of Free Inquiry. Buddhist Publication Society. Kandy. SL ISSN 0049-7541

Sujato Bhikku.  (2018) Anguttaranikaya : Numbered discourses. Translated for SuttaCentral. ReadingFaithfully.org

Sujato Bhikku.  (2018) Majjimanikaya : Numbered discourses. Translated for SuttaCentral. ReadingFaithfully.org

Sujato Bhikku. (2018) Samyuttanikaya: Numbered discourses. Translated for SuttaCentral. ReadingFaithfully.org

Soma Thera. (1994). Kalama Sutta. The Buddha’s Charter of Free Inquiry. Buddhist Publication Society. The wheel publication No 8. Kandy. SL ISSN 0049-7541

Thanissaro (1998) “Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya” (MN 63), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html .

 

Thanissaro (1997) “Paticca Samuppada – Vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising” (SN 12.2) Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikku. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

Thripitaka (2005). Buddhajayanthi Thripitaka Granthamalawa, Buddhist Cultural Centre, ISBN 955-8873-721

Fernando, L. (2017). Origins of research methodology, Buddhism and the Four Noble Truths: Sri lanka Journal of Social Sciences, 2017- dl.nsf.ac.lk

Greenwood, D. (2007). Pragmatic Action Research: International Journal of Action Research, February 2007.

Perera, Perera & Kodituwakku. (2011). Characteristic features of Action Research Found in Buddhism in: Bringing a Different World into Existence, Vienna Conference 2011.

Winter, R (2003). Buddhism and Action Research: towards an appropriate model of inquiry for the caring professions, Educational Action Research, Volume 11, No: 1 (2003).