As a process of inquiry, action research is not a recent phenomenon of the 20th and 21st centuries. Throughout history, humans have engaged in action research processes (Hall, 2001) in order to solve applied issues. More contemporaneously, in the 20th and to some degree in the 21st century, such an applied focus and emphasis on practice within social settings has generated a number of criticisms of action research. Primarily, it is perceived as a process best situated in the realm of consultancy work; having little scientific basis; privileging practical knowing over thinking knowing; having no ‘theory’; and being subjectively and intersubjectively determined instead of objectively determined. Most criticisms have predominantly emerged from within hegemonic positivist or postpositivistic stances regarding what constitutes ‘research’ and relationships between theory and practice. Importantly for action research, it emphasises the practical outcomes of research that arise in the course of cyclical phases of ‘planning’, ‘action’ and ‘fact-finding’ (Lewin, 1946: 38). Its intent is ‘the unity of theory and practice’ (Anonymous in Dewey, 1938: 7) for social ‘good’. While Dewey was referring to education, he like Lewin is associated with influencing the field of action research. As you work through this chapter you will see that these criticisms are well countered with regard to action research, and its approach to both theory and practice. Paradigmatically, all research is informed by a set of principles. From a qualitative perspective, action research is informed by the participatory paradigm as well as social constructivism and critical theory orientation. These paradigms are discussed in more detail later in this chapter.