ABSTRACT
In the early days of CIFOR’s ACM programme, scientists at CIFOR questioned whether ACM was real science. Were the findings reliable and replicable? How could they be generalizable? Part of this questioning related to broad concerns about qualitative research as real science. Part of it may have been motivated by discomfort, within a research organization, at the interventionist or activist nature of ACM with its clear focus on social change. Similar concerns were expressed elsewhere about what was first called action research and, later, participatory action research (PAR). This chapter explores the potential and actual research contributions of ACM and PAR based on the experiences and reflections of the authors, emphasizing PAR. It argues that activities described as ACM or PAR do not always have research objectives and outcomes, but both can do so. It also explores the nature of generalizations that can arise from the two broad approaches.
