Thesis resource paper You want to do an action research thesis? You want to do an action research thesis? -- How to conduct and report action research (including a beginner's guide to the literature)
Bob Dick [email protected] http://www.aral.com.au/ (An on-line version of this paper can be found at URL http://www.aral.com.au/resources/arthesis.html )
Introduction
What is action research? Characteristics of action research
The advantages and disadvantages
Why would anyone use action research? So why doesnt everyone use it? Is there some way around this? How do you do action research?
Choosing an approach
Participatory action research Action science Soft systems methodology Evaluation Methods
Carrying out your research project
1 Do some preliminary reading 2 Negotiate entry to the client system 3 Create a structure for participation 4 Data collection
Writing the thesis
Introductory chapter Chapter on methodology Chapters on the thesis contribution Style and fluency In summary...
References and bibliography
[ contents ]
1 The action research cycle consists at least of intention or planning before action, and review or critique after 2 Within each paradigm of research are several methodologies, each drawing on a number of methods for data collection and interpretation 3 Action research often starts with a fuzzy question and methodology; but provided each cycle adds to the clarity, this is appropriate 4 Only overlapping data are considered. If the informants (etc.) are in agreement, later cycles test the agreement; if disagreeing, later cycles attempt to explain the disagreement 5 An expanded version of the intend-act-review cycle 6 Each persons behaviour may lead to the other person developing unstated assumptions about that person, and inferring unstated rules about their interaction. The result can be a double self-fulfilling prophecy 7 Checklands soft systems methodology is here represented as a system of inquiry using a series of dialectics 8 Kolbs learning cycle 9 The systems model which is the heart of the Snyder approach to evaluation. It is a conventional systems model in which resources correspond to inputs, and activities to processes. There are three levels of outputs, consisting of effects, targets and ideals [ contents ]
This document begins with a brief overview of action research and a discussion of its advantages and disadvantages. The intention is to help you make an informed choice about your approach to your research. There is a particular focus on doing research for a thesis or dissertation, or for a similar independent research report.
If a thesis is not your interest I think you will still find material of use. The document also includes brief accounts of some of the methodologies that exist within action research. An even briefer mention of the data collection methods which can be used is also included.
This background material is followed by two practical sections. The first of them describes how action research can be carried out. A format for writing up the research is then presented. The form of action research described is one which uses a cyclic or spiral process. It converges to something more useful over time for both action and understanding. It is chosen because of the rigour and economy which it allows. I think it is also more easily defended than some other forms.
I write as a practitioner in a psychology department where action research is viewed with some scepticism. You may be doing your research within a setting where action research and qualitative approaches are more common. If so, you may not need to approach it with quite as much caution as I suggest.
In all of this, it is not my intention to argue against other research paradigms. For some purposes quantitative, or reductionist, or hypothesis-testing approaches, alone or together, are much more appropriate. In many research situations action research is quite unsuitable. My only intention is to offer action research as a viable (and sometimes more appropriate) alternative in some research settings. Should you choose to do an action research study this paper will then help you to do so more effectively and with less risk.
Nor do I have any objection to quantitative research. If your measures adequately capture what you are researching, quantitative measures offer very real advantages. However, qualitative measures may allow you to address more of what you want to examine. In such situations it is appropriate to use them.
The paper is copiously referenced so that you can identify the relevant literature. Embedded in the reference list are also some other works. About half of the references are annotated to assist you in an intelligent choice of reading. The annotations are my own opinion, and might not accord with everyones views.
[ contents ]
What is action research?
As the name suggests, action research is a methodology which has the dual aims of action and research...
- action to bring about change in some community or organisation or program
- research to increase understanding on the part of the researcher or the client, or both (and often some wider community)
There are in fact action research methods whose main emphasis is on action, with research as a fringe benefit. At the extreme, the "research" may take the form of increased understanding on the part of those most directly involved. For this form of action research the outcomes are change, and learning for those who take part. This is the form which I most often use.
In other forms, research is the primary focus. The action is then often a by-product. Such approaches typically seek publication to reach a wider audience of researchers. In these, more attention is often given to the design of the research than to other aspects.
In both approaches it is possible for action to inform understanding, and understanding to assist action. For thesis purposes it is as well to choose a form where the research is at least a substantial part of the study. The approach described below tries to assure both action and research outcomes as far as possible. You can modify it in whatever direction best suits your own circumstances.
Characteristics of action research
Above, I defined action research as a form of research intended to have both action and research outcomes. This is a minimal definition. Various writers add other conditions.
Almost all writers appear to regard it as cyclic (or a spiral), either explicitly or implicitly. At the very least, intention or planning precedes action, and critique or review follows. Figure 1 applies.
|
|
I will later argue that this has considerable advantages. It provides a mix of responsiveness and rigour, thus meeting both the action and research requirements. In the process I describe below the spiral is an important feature.
For some writers action research is primarily qualitative. Qualitative research can be more responsive to the situation. To my mind a need for responsiveness is one of the most compelling reasons for choosing action research.
Participation is another requirement for some writers. Some, in fact, insist on this. Participation can generate greater commitment and hence action. When change is a desired outcome, and it is more easily achieved if people are committed to the change, some participative form of action research is often indicated.
My own preferences, just to make them clear, are for cyclic, qualitative and participative approaches. However, this is a matter of pragmatics rather than ideology. I see no reason to limit action research in these ways. To my mind it is a stronger option for offering a range of choices.
There are many conditions under which qualitative data and client participation increase the value of the action research. However, to insist on these seems unnecessary. It seems reasonable that there can be choices between action research and other paradigms, and within action research a choice of approaches. The choice you make will depend upon your weighing up of the many advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages and disadvantages
This section describes some of the more important advantages and disadvantages. One of my intentions in doing this is to correct a common misperception that action research is easier than more conventional research. A description of action research then follows. This provides a basis which will be used later to establish ways of maximising the advantages and minimising the disadvantages.
Why would anyone use action research?
There are a number of reasons why you might choose to do action research, including for thesis research...
- Action research lends itself to use in work or community situations. Practitioners, people who work as agents of change, can use it as part of their normal activities . Mainstream research paradigms in some field situations can be more difficult to use. There is evidence, for instance from Barlow, Hayes and Nelson (1984), that most US practitioners do very little research, and dont even read all that much. Martin (1989) presents similar evidence for Australian and English psychologists. My guess is that they dont find the research methods they have been taught can be integrated easily enough with their practice. Both the US and Australian studies focussed on clinical psychologists. The argument can probably be made even more strongly for psychologists who work as organisational or community change agents. Here the need for flexibility is even greater, I think. And flexibility is the enemy of good conventional research. Increasingly in Australia, practitioners within academic settings are being pressured to publish more. Those I have talked to report that the research is a heavy additional load: almost an extra job. Action research offers such people a chance to make more use of their practice as a research opportunity.
- When practitioners use action research it has the potential to increase the amount they learn consciously from their experience. The action research cycle can also be regarded as a learning cycle (see Kolb, 1984). The educator Schön (1983, 1987) argues strongly that systematic reflection is an effective way for practitioners to learn. Many practitioners have said to me, after hearing about action research, "I already do that". Further conversation reveals that in their normal practice they almost all omit deliberate and conscious reflection, and sceptical challenging of interpretations. To my mind, these are crucial features of effective action research (and, for that matter, of effective learning).
- It looks good on your resumé to have done a thesis which has direct and obvious relevance to practice. If it has generated some worthwhile outcomes for the client, then that is a further bonus. (There are other research methodologies, including some conventional forms, which also offer this advantage.)
- Action research is usually participative. This implies a partnership between you and your clients. You may find this more ethically satisfying. For some purposes it may also be more occupationally relevant.
So why doesnt everyone use it?
You may wonder, then, why it is not more common. The main reason, I suspect, is that it isnt well known. Psychology has ignored action research almost completely. My impression is that there is less debate in academic psychology about research methods and their underlying philosophy than in most other social sciences.
I recall that at the 1986 annual psychology conference the theme was "bridging the gap between theory, research and practice". This was a priority need in psychology, to judge by the choice of theme. Although some of the papers were about applied research in field settings, to my knowledge no paper given at the conference specifically mentioned action research. Yet in action research there need be no gap between theory, research and practice. The three can be integrated.
An ignorance of action research isnt a reason to avoid it. There are good reasons, however, why you may decide to stay within mainstream research. For example, here are some of the costs of choosing action research as your research paradigm...
- It is harder to do than conventional research. You take on responsibilities for change as well as for research. In addition, as with other field research, it involves you in more work to set it up, and you dont get any credit for that.
- It doesnt accord with the expectations of some examiners. Deliberately and for good reason it ignores some requirements which have become part of the ideology of some conventional research. In that sense, it is counter-cultural. Because of this, some examiners find it hard to judge it on its merits. They do not recognise that it has a different tradition, and is based on a methodological perspective and principles different to their own. (At a deeper level some of the differences disappear. Some examiners, however, judge research in terms of more superficial and specific principles.) The danger is that you will receive a lower grade for work of equivalent standard and greater effort. My observation is that some examiners cant discriminate between good action research and action research which is merely competent. The fact that a study is directly relevant to practitioner psychology and may lead to change does not necessarily carry any weight. Within psychology this is a greater issue for fourth year theses than it is at Masters level and beyond. I suspect it is also more of a source of difficulty in academic psychology than in many other disciplines.
- You probably dont know much about action research. (Some of you may not think you know much about conventional research either. But youve been taught it for 3 or 4 years, or more. You have picked up some familiarity with conventional methods in that time.) Action research methodology is something that you probably have to learn almost from scratch.
- You probably cant use a conventional format to write it up effectively. Again, that means you have to learn some new skills. In psychology there is a strong expectation that the format recommended by the American Psychological Association (APA) will be used. A non-APA format may alienate some examiners. Again, this may be more of an issue for people working within the discipline of psychology than in some other social sciences. However, most disciplines have their ideologies about how research should be reported.
- The library work for action research is more demanding. In conventional research you know ahead of time what literature is relevant. In most forms of action research, the relevant literature is defined by the data you collect and your interpretation of it. That means that you begin collecting data first, and then go to the literature to challenge your findings. This is also true of some other forms of field research, though certainly not all.
- Action research is much harder to report, at least for thesis purposes. If you stay close to the research mainstream you dont have to take the same pains to justify what you do. For action research, you have to justify your overall approach. You have to do this well enough that even if examiners dont agree with your approach, they have to acknowledge that you have provided an adequate rationale. (This may be true for other methodologies outside the research mainstream too.)
- All else being equal, an action research thesis is likely to be longer than a conventional thesis. As already mentioned, you have to provide a more compelling justification for what you do. In effect, you have to write two theses. One reports your method, results and interpretation. The other explains why these were appropriate for the research situation. In addition, if you use qualitative data (and you probably will) that also tends to take more space to report. This is particularly relevant for those of you doing a thesis where page limits or word limits are imposed. If there is such a limit you have to write very succinctly, yet do so without undermining your thesis or your justification.
For most people, these disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Above all, if you are choosing action research because you think it may be an easier option, you are clearly mistaken. I assure you it isnt. Its more demanding and more difficult. Particularly at fourth year there is a high risk that you wont get as well rewarded for it in the mark you get.
I expect that most of you have had a reasonably typical university education. If so, and particularly if you studied psychology, you know enough about conventional research that at least you can do it as a "technician", by following a formula. Its better to be creative, but you dont have to be. In action research there isnt a choice. The demands for responsiveness and flexibility require creativity if the study is to be effective. Yet you have to learn quickly to be a good technician too, so that you do not displease the examiners.
It amounts to this. Whatever research method you use must be rigorous . That is, you must have some way of assuring the quality of the data you collect, and the correctness of your interpretation. You must be able to satisfy yourself and others that the interpretation you offer is consistent with the data. Even more importantly, you have to be able to demonstrate that it is more likely than alternative interpretations would be.
Most conventional research methods gain their rigour by control, standardisation, objectivity, and the use of numerical and statistical procedures. This sacrifices flexibility during a given experiment -- if you change the procedure in mid-stream you don't know what you are doing to the odds that your results occurred by chance.
In action research, standardisation defeats the purpose. The virtue of action research is its responsiveness . It is what allows you to turn unpromising beginnings into effective endings. It is what allows you to improve both action and research outcomes through a process of iteration. As in many numerical procedures, repeated cycles allow you to converge on an appropriate conclusion.
If your action research methodology is not responsive to the situation you cant aspire to action outcomes. In some settings that is too high a price to pay. You cant expect to pursue change and do good mainstream research within a single experiment and at the same time.
Good action research is like good social consultancy or community or organisational change. It draws on the same skills and procedures. It offers the same satisfactions. The costs are that it takes time, energy and creativity. And at the end of it you may have to satisfy examiners who are not field practitioners. In fact some of them may not understand and may even be unsympathetic.
Is there some way around this?
Perhaps you are discouraged by now. If so, thats reasonable -- perhaps even realistic. On the other hand, perhaps for you the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and the thought of a lower grade does not distress you provided you pass. In any event, there are ways in which you can reduce the risk of doing action research. The two most important actions you can take are...
- At all times collect and interpret your data in defensible ways. In particular, know your overall methodology before you begin. At least, know how you intend to start, and check that it is defensible. You will change your mind about your methodology in the light of your experience; but because the changes are motivated by evidence, they too will then be defensible. Always use methods for data collection and interpretation which test or challenge your emerging interpretations. That is, seek out disconfirming evidence . Integrate your library research with your data collection and interpretation. There, too, seek out dis confirmation.
- Justify your methodology carefully in the eventual thesis. Carefully explain your reasons for using action research, qualitative data collection, and the specific methods you use. Be careful to do so without being evangelistic, and without implying even the mildest criticism of other research paradigms.
I will have more to say about each of these later.
It may be that there is enough appeal in the thought of using a research method which suits practitioners. If so, the following account will help you to do so while reducing the risk of displeasing the examiners of your thesis.
I assume in what follows that doing good research is a goal, and that you would prefer to please the examiners at the same time.
How do you do action research?
There are many ways to do action research. It is a research paradigm which subsumes a variety of research approaches. Within the paradigm there are several established methodologies. Some examples are Pattons (1990) approach to evaluation, Checklands (1981) soft systems analysis, Argyris (1985) action science, and Kemmis critical action research (Carr and Kemmis, 1986). Each of these methodologies draws on a number of methods for information collection and interpretation, for example interviewing and content analysis. Figure 2 summarises the three levels.
These are choices you have to make -- paradigm, methodology, methods. Each choice has to be justified in your eventual thesis. The aim in making the choice is to achieve action and research outcomes in such a way that each enriches the other. That is an important point. Some of the issues which need addressing in the choice are presented clearly in Lawler, Mohrman, Mohrman, Ledford, and Cummings (1985), particularly the introductory paper by Lawler. The illustrative title of the collection of papers is Doing research which is useful for theory and practice .
Below, I describe an approach as one example of how you might go about it. I have chosen it because it is an approach I am familiar with. Also, it achieves a balance of action and research, and it is more economical to report than other approaches I know. The description is quite general, subsuming the methodologies I have already mentioned. The description is step-by-step, to help you to follow it easily.
I want to avoid the style of much of the literature on counter-cultural research approaches. Many of them evangelise for their own particular variety. Consequently they sometimes give the impression that there is one best way to do research, which just happens to be the one they advocate. I think that the approach I describe below is good, or I wouldnt offer it. I dont want you to think its the only way.
So dont feel obliged to follow the approach I describe. You can expect to have to tailor it to the research situation. If you can do action research without having to modify it on the run, it probably isnt the appropriate choice of paradigm. However, most of the steps in the description are there for good reason. If you modify it, be clear about what you are doing, and why you are doing it. Expect that you will have to modify it to respond to the situation. Expect, too, that each modification needs careful choice and justification.
It is important to remember that many examiners are likely to suspect action research of being far less rigorous than more conventional research. It need not be, but much of it in the past has been. Whatever your choice of methods, therefore, focus on rigour: on the quality of your data and your interpretations. The most effective way of doing this, I believe, is to follow two guidelines...
First, use a cyclic (or "spiral") procedure. In the later cycles you can then challenge the information and interpretation from earlier cycles. Both the data you collect, and the literature you read, are part of this. In effect, your study becomes a process of iteration. Within this process you gradually refine your understanding of the situation you are studying. You can think of it in this way... Conventional research works best when you can start with a very precise research question. You can then design a study to answer that question, also with precision. In action research your initial research question is likely to be fuzzy. This is mainly because of the nature of social systems. It is also because you are more likely to achieve your action outcomes if you take the needs and wishes of your clients into account. Your methodology will be fuzzy too. After all, it derives from the research question, which is fuzzy, and the situation, which is partly unknown. If you address a fuzzy question with a fuzzy methodology the best you can hope for initially is a fuzzy answer (Figure 3). This, I think, explains some of the opposition that action research draws from some quarters. But here is the important point...Provided that the fuzzy answer allows you to refine both question and methods , you eventually converge towards precision. It is the spiral process which allows both responsiveness and rigour at the same time. In any event, the whole purpose of action research is to determine simultaneously an understanding of the social system and the best opportunities for change. If you are to be adequately responsive to the situation, you cant begin the exercise with a precise question. The question arises from the study.
|
|
This is the most important reason for choosing action research: that the research situation demands responsiveness during the research project. If you dont have to be responsive to the situation, I think you would be well advised to save yourself a lot of trouble. Use more conventional research methods.
As it happens, one of the key principles of action research is: let the data decide. At each step, use the information so far available to determine the next step.
Second, at all times try to work with multiple information sources, preferably independent or partly independent. There are ways in which you can use the similarities and differences between data sources to increase the accuracy of your information.
This might be called dialectic . It is similar to what is often called triangulation in research (Jick, 1979). For more background on this important topic you might read some of the material on multimethod research. Examples include Brewer and Hunter (1989), Cohen and Manion (1985), and Fielding and Fielding (1986).
Any two or more sources of information can serve your purpose of creating a dialectic. Here are a few examples. You may use...
different informants, or different but equivalent samples of informants; different research settings (as a bonus, this increases the generalisability of your results); the same informant responding to different questions which address the same topic from somewhat different directions; information collected at different times; different researchers; or, as in triangulation, different methods.
I have described elsewhere a data-collection method, convergent interviewing (Dick, 1990b), which uses paired interviews to create a dialectic. This illustrates the principle. After each pair of interviews, the idiosyncratic information is discarded. Probe questions are then devised for later interviews. Their purpose is to test any agreements by finding exceptions, and to explain any disagreements (Figure 4).
So, for example, if two interviewees agree about X , whatever X is, look for exceptions in later interviews. If the interviewees disagree about X , try in later interviews to explain the disagreement. If only one person mentions X , ignore it.
In effect, treat agreement sceptically by seeking out exceptions. The disagreement between the original data and the exceptions can then be resolved, leading you deeper into the situation you are researching.
It is an important feature of this approach that the later interviews differ from the earlier interviews. This gives you the chance to be suspicious of your emerging interpretation, and to refine your method and your questions. Each interview (or pair of interviews) becomes a turn of the research spiral.
(For an independent assessment of convergent interviewing as a qualitative research tool see Thompson, Donohue and Waters-Marsh (1992).)
What I suggest you do is follow these two groundrules, and explain them clearly in your thesis. You will be less liable to the criticisms which some action research theses have faced in the past.
The purpose in action research is to learn from your experience, and apply that learning to bringing about change. As the dynamics of a social system are often more apparent in times of change (Lewin, 1948), learning and change can enhance each other.
However, you are more likely to learn from an experience if you act with intent. Enter the experience with expectations. Be on the lookout for unmet expectations. Seek to understand them. A different way of describing action research is therefore as an intend Æ act Æ review spiral. A more elaborate form is shown in Figure 5.
|
|
It is by being deliberate and intentional about this process that you can maximise your learning. At each of the steps you learn something. Sometimes you are recalling what you think you already understand. At other steps you are either confirming your previous learning or deciding from experience that your previous learning was inadequate.
This is equivalent to what Gummesson (1991) calls the "hermeneutic spiral", where each turn of the spiral builds on the understanding at the previous turn. It is these -- the responsiveness to the situation, and the striving after real understanding -- which define action research as a viable research strategy.
This helps to explain why action research tends also to be qualitative and participative. In quantitative research you often have to give a fair amount of time and attention to the development of an appropriate metric or system of measurement. Every time you change your mind about your research question you risk having to modify your metric.
Participation favours qualitative methods. Participation by the client group as informed sources of information gives you a better chance of discovering what they know and you currently do not. They are more likely to join you as equal partners in this endeavour if you speak to them in their own language (for instance, everyday English) than in numbers or technical language.
In addition to gaining some background knowledge of action research, you also need enough prior information to enable an intelligent choice of methodology. The following section describes four action research methodologies.
As I have said, there are paradigms (such as action research), methodologies (soft systems analysis, for example), and methods. You will change your mind during the course of the study about methods, so you need not concern yourself too much about them now. You may even change the methodology you use; but it doesnt hurt to begin by choosing one as the possible vehicle for your study.
There are advantages in following a published approach. In particular it can be simpler to use a process described by an author who has sufficiently explained and justified it. In your eventual thesis it is then someone else who is providing much of the justification for what you do. This is less risky than having to provide it yourself.
By the way, I do not think you should accept anyone elses arguments uncritically. Satisfy yourself that the argument is well made. Better still, suggest some improvements.
Below, I give brief accounts of four methodologies. One is participatory action research, to some extent in the style of the "critical action research" of Kemmis and his colleagues at Deakin University (Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988). A second is action science as developed by Argyris and his colleagues (for example Argyris, Putnam and Smith, 1985). Checklands (1981) soft systems methodology comprises the third. The fourth, evaluation, is itself a large family of methodologies. I draw to some extent on the work of Patton (for example, 1990) and Snyder (personal communication). I do not assume that the developers of these methodologies would necessarily agree with my summary of them.
Participatory action research
The action research literature is reasonably large, and growing. It is often characterised by process-oriented, practical descriptions of action research methods. Action research in education, in particular, is common. To select from the large number available, I might mention as examples Elliott (1991), McKernan (1991), and Winter (1989). Each of these is written from a different perspective.
A number of works which use the Deakin model provide useful reading. Kemmis (1991) is one. Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt (1992a, 1992b) has recently published two books in this tradition.
You may also want to supplement your reading from works on qualitative research generally. Examples here include Gummesson (1991), Marshall and Rossman (1989), or Strauss and Corbin (1990). Marshall and Rossman is a good starting point. Whyte (1991) contains a collection of papers mostly illustrating participatory action research with case studies done in a variety of settings.
If you look at the bibliography you will find that three publishers in particular, Falmer and Kogan Page in England and especially Sage in the US, specialise in qualitative research. Most of their publications (or at least those Ive seen) are well written and useful.
When it comes to justifying your use of action research, I think the first half of Checkland (1981) provides a more coherent argument than most of the others. (Not everyone agrees with me about this). Although he is describing soft systems methodology, described below, he explicitly identified it as an action research methodology (Checkland, 1992). In his keynote address to the Action Learning Congress in Brisbane in 1992 he argued that a legitimate rigorous action research methodology requires an explicit methodological framework. I agree. He claims most action research ignores this requirement.
In addition, Checkland uses language which will be less of a challenge to the expectations of examiners unfamiliar with action research. In contrast, the arguments of Kemmis and his colleagues (see below), and many other writers in the field, are occasionally polemical enough to stir defensiveness. I advise caution in their use.
There is also good material in some of the papers in the collection edited by Van Maanen (1983). Van Maanens own introduction and epilogue provide good starting points.
The form of action research taught at Deakin University by Stephen Kemmis and Robin McTaggart provides a framework. There are several sources, but particularly Carr and Kemmis (1986), and Kemmis and McTaggart (1988). If your examiners are familiar with action research, it may well be that this is the form they know best. Deakin also offers a distance education course in action research, reported electronically by McTaggart (1992).
The Deakin University people work with a particular form of action research, and tend to be critical of other approaches. If you use their method, it would be as well to document and argue for any deviations. As I said above, they also often argue more on ethical than epistemological grounds, and somewhat evangelically. Your best strategy for thesis purposes may be to use their processes, which are effective and well explained. However, it may be better to find your arguments elsewhere.
To help you place their approach in context, you may also want to read Grundy (1982, 1987). This will help you distinguish the Deakin approach from some of its alternatives. In addition, McTaggart (1991) has written a brief history of action research, with a particular emphasis on educational settings.
The essence of the Deakin approach is the use of a defined cycle of research, and the use of participatory methods to produce "emancipation". They call their approach emancipatory action research, and draw on European sources, especially on the critical theory of the Frankfurt school. The cycle or spiral which they describe consists of four steps: plan, act, observe and reflect.. This cycle is carried out by the participants -- they conceive of action research as something done by the clients, not something done to the clients by a researcher. To my mind one of the strengths of their approach is the emphasis on research which liberates those who are researched.
Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) provide a description of the Deakin approach. Zuber-Skerritt (1992a, 1992b) uses a similar framework. She draws heavily on Kemmis work, also relating it to other (especially European) literatures. Anything by Richard Bawden, who runs a whole faculty on action research principles at the Hawkesbury campus of the University of Western Sydney, is likely to contain a thoughtful and well-argued commentary (for example Bawden, 1991). His approach is in most respects consistent with that of the Deakin team. Denham (1989) has done a coursework masters dissertation using action research, though not in the Deakin style.
Participatory action research is a generic methodology. You could treat it as a back-up position for some other approach if you wished. It might also be a good choice if the research situation appears too ambiguous to allow a more specific choice.
The next methodology, action science, is more specific.
Action science
For some decades now, Chris Argyris has been developing a conceptual model and process which is at the one time a theory of social systems and an intervention method. It is particularly appropriate to the researching of self-fulfilling prophecies, system dynamics based on communication flows, and relationships.
The central idea is that, despite their espoused values, people follow unstated rules. These rules prevent them behaving as they might consciously wish. The result is interpersonal and system processes in which many problems are concealed. At the same time, taboos prevent the problems or their existence being mentioned. In effect, the unstated rules of the situation, and the unstated assumptions people form about each other, direct their interactions in both group and organisational settings (Figure 6).
|
|
I know of no other system which integrates in so well-argued a fashion interpersonal, intrapersonal and system dynamics, and processes for research and intervention. As Argyris presents the approach it does depend on high quality relationships between researcher and client, and skilled facilitation. However, there are alternatives in the form of detailed processes which clients can manage for themselves. These processes are directed towards the same improvement in the social systems and the understanding of the actors as in Argyris own work (see Dick and Dalmau, 1990). They have been used in one action research thesis to my knowledge, Anderson (1993).
The concepts are developed in Argyris and Schön (1974, 1978). The 1974 book deals primarily with the effects of intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics on social systems. The later book focuses more deliberately on system dynamics. Argyris 1980 book provides much of the rationale, as do some of his earlier works.
Many people find this material hard to read. Argyris (1990) is easier to follow. People have told me that a book Tim Dalmau and I wrote (Dick and Dalmau, 1990) sets out the concepts well. If you can get hold of Liane Andersons (1993) thesis, it contains a very clear overview. Your understanding of the relevant system dynamics may be helped by Senge (1990), who describes system functioning in terms of interaction cycles. Most people find Senge more readable than Argyris (though it is my view that in some respects Senges book lacks Argyris depth).
The research methodology is most clearly described in Argyris, Putnam and Smith (1985). It is also worth browsing through Argyris (1985), which was written for consultants. (This is an action research project and action implies intervention.) Argyris 1983 paper is also relevant.
Argyris, too, is evangelical about his approach, and criticises other research methods. If you use his own arguments you may have to be careful to avoid offending some readers.
There isnt a simple way to describe the methodology. Essentially it depends upon agreeing on processes which identify and deal with those unstated rules which prevent the honest exchange of information. The diagram above can be used as a model for the type of information to surface. There is a strong emphasis on the people involved in the research being honest about their own intentions, and about their assumptions about each others motives. You can think of it as providing a detailed set of communication processes which can enhance other action research approaches.
I have treated action science as action research. However, note the view expressed by Argyris and Schön (1989, 1991). While acknowledging action science as a form of action research they identify an important difference in focus. In particular, Argyris has argued here and elsewhere that normal social research is not capable of producing valid information. Without valid information the rigour of any action research endeavour is necessarily undermined. As I understand him, he believes that action science is a research method which is capable of obtaining valid information about social systems where most other research methods, action research or otherwise, would fail.
Action science is a good choice of methodology if there are strong within-person and between person dynamics, especially if hidden agendas appear to be operating. However, it probably requires better interpersonal skills and willingness to confront than do the other methodologies described here. You can use a pre-designed process, but unless you sacrifice some flexibility you still require reasonably good skills.
Soft systems methodology, which follows, is somewhat less demanding in terms of the interpersonal skills it requires.
Soft systems methodology
Soft systems methodology is a non-numerical systems approach to diagnosis and intervention. Descriptions have been provided by Checkland (1981, 1992), Checkland and Scholes (1990), Davies and Ledington (1991), and Patching (1990). The book by Davies and Ledington is a good starting point. It also has the advantage that both authors are now in Brisbane. Lynda Davies is at QUT, and Paul Ledington is in the Department of Commerce at the University of Queensland. Patchings description is very practical. He provides a complementary description, as he writes as a practitioner. The other writers are academics. Jackson (1991) has provided a critique, partly sympathetic, of soft systems methodology and related approaches.
In the description which follows, I will first outline an inquiry process which stresses the notion of dialectic rather more than the descriptions given by the authors cited above. I then explain the specific features of soft systems methodology. In doing this I use the framework which this inquiry process provides.
One form of inquiry process consists of three dialectics. In each dialectic you (or the researchers) alternate between two forms of activity, using one to refine the other. Figure 7 outlines the process as a series of dialectics.
- To begin you immerse yourself in the reality, in a style akin to participant observation (as described, for example, in Lofland and Lofland, 1984). You then try to capture the essence of the system in a description, probably in terms of its most important functions. Then switch between reality and your description of that reality. This is the first dialectic.
- The next dialectic is between the description of the essence, and a depiction of an ideal. The description of the essence you already have, from the first dialectic. You then forget your experience of the reality. Working from the description of the essential functions, devise an ideal system. Alternate between them until you are satisfied that your ideal achieves the essential functions of the system.
- The third is between the ideal and reality. You compare your ideal to the actual system, noting differences. This third dialectic gives rise to a set of proposals for improvement to the reality. This leads in turn to action, which is a dialectic between plans and reality, and is a fourth step.
The diagram may make this clearer. In more detail...
- First you immerse yourself in the system, soaking up what is happening. From time to time you stand back from the situation. You reflect on your immersion, trying to make sense of it. At these points you might ask: what is the system achieving or trying to achieve? When you return to immersion you can check if your attributed meaning adequately captures the essentials. This continues until you are content with your description of the essential functions.
- You then forget about reality, and work from your description of its essential functions. You devise the ideal system or systems to achieve the systems actual or intended achievements. Moving to and fro between essence and ideal, you eventually decide you have developed an effective way for the system to operate.
- The third step is to compare ideal and actual. Comparisons may identify missing pieces of the ideal, or better ways of doing things. The better ways are added to a list of improvements.
- Finally, the feasible and worthwhile improvements are acted on, forming the fourth dialectic.
- In passing, you may note the resemblance of this to Kolbs (1984) learning cycle (Figure 8). His four-element cycle consists of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract generalisation, and active experimentation.
| |
It is typical for each cycle in soft systems methodology to take place several times. A better understanding develops through these iterations. If there is a mismatch between the two poles of a dialectic, this leads to a more in-depth examination of what you dont understand. Continuing uncertainty or ambiguity at any stage may trigger a return to an earlier stage.
To give more impact to the third dialectic, the first dialectic can be put deliberately out of mind when the second dialectic is current. In other words, when you are devising the ideal, try to forget how the actual system operates. In this way, the ideal is derived from the essence, to reduce contamination by the way the system actually behaves. The comparison of ideal and actual then offers more points of contrast.
I have taken some pains to describe the process as an inquiry process. If you wished you could use models other than systems models within the process. What converts this inquiry system into a soft systems analysis is the use of systems concepts in defining the essence and the ideal.
In systems terminology the essence becomes the necessary functions. Checkland calls them root definitions. To check that they are adequate he proposes what he calls a Catwoe analysis. Catwoe is an acronym for...
C ustomers A ctors T ransformation (that is, of system inputs into outputs) W eltanschauung (or world view) O wners, and E nvironmental constraints.
The ideal, too, is conceived of in systems terms by devising an ideal way of transforming the inputs into outputs. Systems models help to suggest ways in which the different goals of the studied system can be achieved.
In his earlier work Checkland described this as a seven-step process. The steps are...
(1) the problem unstructured; (2) the problem expressed; (3) root definitions of relevant systems; (4) conceptual models; (5) compare the expressed problem to the conceptual models; (6) feasible and desirable change; and (7) action to improve the problem situation.
Soft systems methodology is well suited to the analysis of information systems. This has been the thrust of the works I mention earlier, though I wouldnt limit it to that application. For an example of a dissertation using it in agriculture see van Beek (1989). Reville (1989) has used it to evaluate a training scheme. It seems to lend itself to the analysis of decision-making systems generally.
The next subsection deals with a more generic methodology: evaluation.
It is misleading to characterise evaluation as a single methodology. There is probably far more written on evaluation alone than on all (other) action research methodologies combined. The approaches vary from those which are very positivist in their orientation (for example, Suchman, 1967) to those which are explicitly and deliberately anti-positivist (such as Guba and Lincoln, 1989). For thumbnail sketches of a variety of approaches, ranging in length from a paragraph to several pages, see Scrivens (1991) aptly named Evaluation thesaurus .
As is often so when people have to deal with the complexities of reality, the change in methodology over time has been mostly from positivism to action research and from quantitative to qualitative. Cook and Shadish (1986) summarise the trends, explain the reasons for the shift from positivism, and in doing so provide some useful background. Yes, it is the same Cook who wrote on quasi-experimentation (Cook and Campbell, 1979). This is one of the fringe benefits of using an evaluation methodology -- you can support your justification of your methodology with quotes from people who are well regarded in traditional research circles. Cronbach (Cronbach, Ambron, Dornbusch, Hess, Hornik, Phillips, Walker, and Weiner, 1980) and Lawler (Lawler et. al., 1985) are other examples.
There is a sense in which the distinction between evaluation and some other processes is artificial. If you are working within an action research framework then appropriate diagnostic methods can be used for evaluation. So can appropriate evaluation methods be used for diagnosis. In both instances the situation is analysed with a view to bringing about change. A fourth year research project by Reville (1989) has used soft systems methodology successfully as an evaluation tool. Bish (1992), in a coursework masters dissertation, used a general action research approach for evaluation of a fourth year university course.
Two writers who provide a copious justification for their approach to evaluation are Patton (for instance 1982, 1986, 1990) and Guba (1990; Guba and Lincoln, 1981, 1989; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Of the two, Guba provides the more detailed description of how evaluation can be done. The approach is also a little more carefully argued, though too polemical to be used carelessly.
My own preferred approach is based on an evaluation model developed by Snyder (personal communication), who once lectured at the University of Queensland. I have been developing it into a more systematic process while preserving its responsiveness. It is so far unpublished, though I can provide you with some papers on it (Dick, 1992a, among others). It has been used in a number of settings and has featured in a coursework masters thesis by Bell (1990).
However, if you use the Snyder model or other goal oriented models be aware of the debate about goals. Scriven (1972) and Stufflebeam (1972) between them cover the essentials. Then use Scrivens (1991) entry on goal-free evaluation to bring you up to date.
A brief description of a Snyder evaluation follows...
The Snyder "model" actually consists of a content model based on systems concepts and a number of processes. The content model has inputs (known as resources), transformations (activities), and three levels of outputs: immediate effects, targets, and ideals. Figure 9 shows it diagrammatically.
|
The processes allow you to address three forms of evaluation in sequence. Process evaluation helps you and your clients to understand how resources and activities accomplish immediate effects, targets and ideals. Outcome evaluation uses this understanding to develop performance indicators and use them to estimate the effectiveness of the system. Short-cycle evaluation sets up feedback mechanisms to allow the system members to continue to improve the system over time.
If done participatively the process component leads to immediate improvement of the system. As the participants develop a better understanding of the system they change their behaviour to make use of that understanding. The outcome component can be used to develop performance indicators. The short-cycle component in effect creates a self-improving system by setting up better feedback mechanisms. You can think of it as a qualitative alternative to total quality management.
Whatever the methodology you choose, you will require some means for collecting the information. I wont go into these in detail here, but will briefly mention some of the methods and some of the sources.
Firstly, two data collection methods have a strong dialectic built into them. One is convergent interviewing (Dick, 1990b). The second is delphi, a way of pooling data from a number of informants. It is usually done by mail; this makes the process easier to manage, though at the cost of reducing participation. It is described in some detail by Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafson (1986). Their brief and readable book also describes nominal group technique, which is a group data-collection process which allows all views to be taken into account. To alert you to the dangers in using delphi there is a biting critique by Sackman (1975). A briefer and more sympathetic account appears in Armstrong (1985). For a recent example of a research masters thesis in social work using a mail delphi see Dunn (1991).
I have described (Dick, 1991) a face-to-face version of delphi, though one which requires more skilled facilitation than the mail version. This same book, on group facilitation, contains descriptions of a number of methods for collecting and collating information in group settings.
A further dialectic process, though not usually described in those terms, is conflict management or mediation. This is a process, or rather a family of processes, whose purpose is to reach agreement in situations characterised by disagreement. You can therefore regard conflict management as a set of processes for data collection and interpretation. One of the clearest process descriptions is in Cornelius and Faire (1989).
A further technique which can be turned easily into a dialectic process is group feedback analysis. Heller, who devised it, has described it in a number of papers (for example 1970, 1976). For other specific techniques you might consult McCracken (1988) on the long interview, and Morgan (1988) on focus groups. You have to build your own dialectic into these methods. Hellers approach sacrifices responsiveness to standardisation, to some extent. It is not difficult to modify it to give it whatever emphasis you desire.
There are a number of recent general accounts of qualitative methods. Miles and Huberman (1984) focus primarily on methods for analysing qualitative data. Walker (1985), Van Maanen (1983), and Rutman (1984) present collections of papers, many of which are helpful in choosing methods. Market research techniques, for example as described by Kress (1988) can often be pressed into service. Gummesson (1991) takes a more macro approach with a particular emphasis on managerial settings.
Practical works on group facilitation can also be helpful. For example you might try Heron (1989), or Corey and Corey (1987). My book entitled Helping groups to be effective (Dick, 1991) is also relevant. It has quite a lot on methods of collecting and collating data in group settings.
[ contents ]
In this section I provide a description of the major phases of an action research project.
In doing this I dont want to give the wrong impression. So please note that it isnt going to be as simple in practice as my description may imply. You are likely to find that the steps overlap, and on occasion you may have to revisit early steps to take account of later data collection and literature. Think of it as consisting of cycles within cycles.
However, there are some broad stages. They are described immediately below...
1. Do some preliminary reading
Reading about action research continues throughout the study, but its useful to have some idea of action research before you actually approach a client. If you have no idea what you are going to do, you may find it hard to explain to others.
If you choose the reading carefully, it can also be preparation for the introduction to your thesis. In fact, its a good idea to start writing your introduction. In that way you can check that you can provide an adequate justification. It would be a shame if you decided after it was all over that you didnt choose an appropriate approach.
At this stage, most of your reading is in the methodological literature. The content literature comes later, as you collect and interpret some of your data. If you are definitely researching a particular content area you will need to scan the more important literature in the field. For the most part, however, reading in the content literature at this stage can be wasted if the research takes off in a different direction.
In approaching the methodological literature, look for arguments you can use to justify your approach. At the same time, notice any approaches which seem to suit your intended research situation.
To begin to access the literature, you might begin with the first half of Checklands (1981) book on soft systems methodology. It provides a clear justification for using an action research approach in language which wont distress people from a more traditional research background. Some of the chapters in Van Maanen (1983) are also appropriate.
To give you some background on the use of qualitative data, you will probably find Patton (1990) valuable. So is Kirk and Miller (1986). Rigour without numbers (Dick, 1990a) is useful and presents a somewhat different view.
For a general overview, Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) is valuable. Beware, though, that they have narrow ideas about what is acceptable as action research. Altrichter (1991) argues that action research has strong similarities to conventional research. This may help you to make your research approach less alienating for an examiner. For general background it may also be worth your while to skim Guba (1990). But be careful about using the arguments from this book, as they tend to be polemical. Phillips (1992) identifies some of the weaknesses in Gubas arguments.
Action research, as Ive said, is action and research. The literature on intervention is therefore relevant. A good starting point is Guba and Lincolns (1989) book on evaluation. Their "fourth generation evaluation", as they call it, is an evaluation technique which is clearly similar to action research. It integrates research and intervention systematically and well. Again, the arguments are somewhat polemical. French and Bell (1990) write on organisational change from an explicit action research perspective. Dunphy (1981) deals well with change techniques, in a book written specifically to integrate concepts and practice. It has the added advantage that it was written for Australian conditions. However (in my mind narrowly) it criticises general systems theory as a basis for theorising about change. Cummings and Huse (1989) describe organisational change in a way which relates it more directly to the academic research literature. This can be useful.
If your interest is more in community change try Cox, Erlich, Rothman, and Tropman (1987). Dont overlook Rogers (1983) and his collation of a massive literature on change and innovation. Although directed primarily towards rural innovation it draws on a wider literature than that, and has wider application. It is a very good resource. I hope a new edition appears soon.
You will eventually want to read about specific methods. For the most part, however, this can probably wait until you are a little further into the actual study. The reading Ive suggested in this section will get you started. You can then return to the earlier sections of this paper or the appended bibliography for further reading.
In addition, Miles and Huberman (1984) may help you to gain some idea of the possibilities for collecting and analysing data. A general text on action research or qualitative research may be worth skimming. You can choose from Crabtree and Miller (1992), van Maanen (1983), Whyte (1991), Strauss and Corbin (1990), Walker (1985), or Reason (1988), among others. Have a look at their titles (and for some the annotations) in the bibliography below, to help you choose.
It is important not to limit your reading to those people whose ideas you agree with. Some examiners will judge your final thesis from within their own paradigm. To address their concerns you have to understand their ideology as well as your own. Presumably most of you already have some exposure to this literature from your prior study of the social sciences. However, it wont hurt to refresh your memory. You will find Campbell and Stanley (1963) useful reading on the threats to validity you have to deal with. Cook and Campbell (1979) can then provide a valuable supplement to this. Black and Champion (1976) also provide a traditional view. For a more recent view, try Stone (1986).
If you are a bookworm, you will develop some useful background understanding by exploring some philosophy of science. Kuhn (1970) is vintage. Lakatos (1972) and Feyerabend (1981) will help you develop an understanding of the way all research paradigms have their Achilles heel. If you dont want to read them in the original, Chalmers (1982, 1990) provides a critical but fair overview together with an account of other views. I find him one of the most readable of philosophers.
Phillips (1992), in an eclectic, reasoned and often entertaining book, points out the weaknesses in several approaches. He also provides a summary of current views in the philosophy of science. Even if you dont read anything else on the philosophy of science his chapter on qualitative research is well worth studying.
To prepare for the eventual thesis, look beyond the differences to the underlying issues. If you can phrase your justification of action research in terms of different trade-offs in different paradigms you may find it easier to support your research processes without appearing to criticise other approaches. There is more on this below.
2. Negotiate entry to the client system
As well as the general reading on action research, you will find it useful to read something on entry and contracting before you actually enter the client system. You might choose from the following. Dougherty (1990) is a general introduction to organisation development which has a section on entry. Glidewell (1989) focuses on issue entries. In another paper in the same book Schatzman and Strauss (1989) deal with the important topic of creating relationships in consulting. My favoured book in the area is Hermann and Korenich (1977), despite its age. Argyris work is relevant too, for instance his 1990 book; but its not something to try to understand in just a day or two.
A collection of papers which focus on field research has been compiled by Shaffir and Stebbins (1991). The first of four parts is on entry. Each of the other parts gives attention to the importance of forming relationships. The approach is mostly ethnographic, but many of the practices translate easily enough into the type of research Im discussing here.
Obviously enough, your intention during the entry phase is to negotiate something which is mutually beneficial for you and the client system. What may be less obvious, and certainly more difficult, is to negotiate a fair amount of flexibility in what you do, and your role. Without flexibility you sacrifice some of the advantages of the action research methodology.
3. Create a structure for participation
In much action research the intention of the researcher is to create a partnership between herself and the client group. That can increase the honesty with which the clients report information -- its in their benefit, too, to have accurate information. It almost always increases the commitment of the client group to the changes which emerge from the research.
In some situations you may be able to involve all of those who have an interest in the situation -- the "stakeholders", as they are usually called. In other situations you may have to be satisfied with a sample. And occasionally it may only be feasible to use the stakeholders as informants, without involving them any more directly in the process.
Choosing an appropriate sample is not always easy. You may find a "maximum diversity" sample, in which you try to include as much diversity as you can, will give you better information for a given size. In random samples, especially small ones, the extreme views tend to be under-represented. You are less likely to miss important information if you include as many views as possible. In addition, dialectic works better if there is adequate variety in the information analysed.
You can often achieve a real partnership with the client group even when you have to work with a sample. A convenient practice is to set up a steering committee with a small sample. They become directly involved with you. They can also help you to choose others as informants, and to interpret the information you get. However, before you actually start on this, give some attention to your relationship with them, and their and your roles. Also agree on the processes you will use together. Remember to be flexible and to negotiate for ample continuing flexibility.
There is some literature on the value of participation in action research. It is often less explicit about how you would actually do it. A commendable exception is Oja and Smulyan (1989). For the most part you will have to make do with the literature mentioned in step 2, previously.
4. Data collection
If this were a conventional piece of research you would expect to collect all the data first. Only when data collection was complete would you do your analysis. Then would follow in turn interpretation and reporting.
In action research you can improve the rigour of your study substantially by combining collection, interpretation, library research, and perhaps reporting. Developing an interpretation right from the start gives you more time and more cycles to test it thoroughly. In this respect, a single action research study bears some resemblance to a large program of conventional research. Or, to put it differently, a single cycle resembles a whole experiment. In action research each cycle is smaller because there are multiple cycles in one study.
A further advantage in recording your interpretation as you proceed is that you spare yourself the mountain of data which qualitative research too often accumulates. You need only record your interpretation and the data relevant to its confirmation and disconfirmation. Further, because of the convergent nature of the process, the more detailed information collected in the later cycles supersedes the earlier data.
Your reading can also be more targeted to your results. You will have to range widely in your reading to find the relevant papers and books. And you will find it very useful to develop some library search skills and to learn how to phrase research questions in language librarians can understand. The result will be a literature review which is determined by relevance not by discipline or sub-discipline.
During this phase, too, plans for change will be developed. This may or many not be of interest for your thesis. You wont get much credit for it from some examiners. It is clearly relevant to practitioners, and to the clients. Developing plans during data collection also allows those plans to be refined as the study proceeds.
There are authors who discuss the difficult task of writing up qualitative research, for example Wolcott (1990) or Richardson (1990). There are many more, especially when you include those on report writing in general. It is worth your while to read one or two. However, for thesis purposes I am going to suggest a format which allows you sufficient brevity, and capitalises on the use of dialectic during the research process. I have discussed this elsewhere (Dick, 1992b). My argument is that building a process around dialectic leads to economy in both conduct and reporting of action research. At the same time it increases rigour.
There are some general principles to keep in mind as you write the thesis. Above all, what you do is less important than how well you make a case for doing it. Secondly, it is important that you present your methods and findings in such a way that the precision of your work and the adequacy of your interpretation are at all times very evident . Unless you specifically explain that your study is rigorous, and why, a few examiners may assume it isnt.
The final thesis wont look all that much like a conventional thesis, so again you have to explain and justify what you have done. I suggest therefore that where APA or other appropriate conventions are relevant you follow them. Where they are not, explain what you have done.
Any writing is easier for being adequately organised around a theme. My suggestion is that you organise your thesis around the specific contributions that your thesis makes to the body of knowledge.
In doing this you may find that a "Chapter" format will serve your purposes better than the more conventional introduction-method-results-discussion-conclusion. The structure may be: an introductory chapter; a chapter on the methodology; separate chapters on each of the findings; a conclusion.
Introductory chapter
The introductory chapter sets the scene by describing the field situation and the reason for doing the study. It then provides a brief overview of the study, the methodology, and probably the conclusions. (If you dont want to spoil the surprise you can state the conclusions as issues to be resolved.) If you mention anything which might be contentious, also state where reasons will be given.
A little historical context is sometimes useful, to the extent that it helps to explain why the study was done. There may be some content literature, depending on the nature of your psychological contract with the client group and the focus of the study. Often, however, the best place for most of the content literature is in the later chapters. This will become clearer shortly. You would be well advised to explain the structure of the thesis, and your reasons for adopting this structure, very near the beginning.
By the end of this chapter, aim to have identified the need for responsiveness in your research design. Your argument will then flow logically into the second chapter, on methodology.
Chapter on methodology
A major chapter then outlines and justifies your approach. As discussed earlier, there is the overall action research paradigm, the particular methodology, and the specific methods used. Each has to be described and justified. The use of qualitative methods will also have to be explained and justified as part of the discussion of the action research paradigm.
In providing your justification, the frame of mind I suggest you adopt is as follows. There is nothing wrong with more traditional research methods: when they fit the situation they are often the most appropriate. However, in this particular setting action research is more suitable.
Dont be defensive about action research in your justification. The effect to aim for is naturalness. Try to convey that this is a normal and natural research paradigm with adequate rigour and a long tradition. It is suitable for some research projects which are not as amenable to being researched using other methods. In particular, it allows practitioners to achieve better research outcomes from their practice without undermining the changes their practice is intended to achieve.
In presenting your justification it is often useful to write about the trade-offs involved. For example, replicability and responsiveness are hard to achieve at one time: you trade off one for the other. Conventional research sacrifices responsiveness in the interests of achieving replicability. That is what often makes it unsuitable as a change technique. Action research values responsiveness over replicability, because otherwise it is very difficult to achieve action as part of the research.
Note too that, all else being equal, responsiveness and rigour are both virtues. In a change program you need responsiveness. If you can achieve it in ways which allow some replicability, so much the better. Aim for best-of-both-world processes when you can.
A more telling trade-off is between local relevance and global relevance. It will also serve as an example of how you can support a counter-cultural approach without explicitly criticising the dominant culture. To do this, you identify the issue on which the usual ideology depends and discuss that issue. It is then unnecessary to attack the convention methodology. The following discussion may help to clarify this.
A common criticism of action research is its lack of generalisability (see Heller, 1986), sometimes called external validity. To some extent this is true. The harder you try to find an explanation which fits a specific situation, the more likely it is to differ from what would suit a different situation. By defining the debate in terms of generalisability, however, you disguise the trade-off.
Some literature (for instance Kirk and Miller, 1986) reverses the argument. Qualitative research, Kirk and Miller argue, has an ecological validity which quantitative research lacks. However, I dont think you change peoples minds about an ideology by stating its opposite as an assertion. However, Kirk and Miller do acknowledge a trade-off between reliability and validity. At least an issue underlying the generally-held principle is revealed.
As I said a few paragraphs earlier, the trade-off can be described as one between local relevance and global relevance. (There are other trade-offs here too, which I wont address.) You can be responsive to the local situation, and sacrifice global relevance if necessary. Alternatively you can pursue global relevance at all costs, even at the expense of denying opportunities for local change. You explain your choice in these terms, and do what you can to compensate for the disadvantages your choice contains.
Justification is thus provided without defensiveness, and with less danger of arousing defensiveness. The best argued case in the world will avail you little if you tread on ideological toes. It seems to me that Argyris (1970, 1976, 1980) has presented cogent arguments against conventional research. It hasnt produced much reaction or led to much change. I suspect this is because it is presented in such a challenging way that people find it easier to ignore than to address.
The ideal is for the examiner to be led by your argument to the same conclusions about methodology that you reached. One way to do this is --
- explain the topic in such a way that it is clearly justified as an important and timely topic;
- identify the methodological issues which you face in doing such a study; do this in such a way that by the time you draw your conclusions about the most appropriate methodology you have led the reader to the same conclusions.
To take a related example... I suggest you resist the temptation to point out the general shortcomings of other approaches. For instance you could argue that truly-experimental research achieves generalisability by limiting its focus very severely. At best its conclusions can be applied to the world at large. But it is able to consider so few variables at once that it is not the world of people and organisations as they exist in practice.
There is another trade-off involved here. It might be described as between universality of principles and universality of application. In one instance you can say: Yes, this is a universal or near-universal principle; it is hard to apply on its own, because it considers only a limited set of variables. In the other instance, the statement becomes: Yes, you have to treat this flexibly if you translate it into other settings. But it does consider the situation as it is, and not a small portion of the situation.
The essence of this approach to justification is simple. Acknowledge the conventional view. Explain the nature of the choice in terms of underlying principles. Present your own choice as fitting your methodology to the situation.
If you have followed the research approach recommended here, there are key features which it is usually appropriate to mention. The need for responsiveness is important. It usually provides the justification for qualitative action research. The intention to produce change, and the importance of the commitment of the participants, are good reasons for using participation.
Above all, the procedures used to achieve rigour are crucial. They may include the following...
- use brief cycles to provide adequate iteration;
- strive always to access multiple data sources to provide a dialectic;
- develop interpretations as part of data collection;
- access the relevant literature as part of interpretation, to widen the dialectic; and
- continuously test your assumptions sceptically and rigorously: actively seek exceptions to apparent agreement and explanations for apparent disagreement; be willing to challenge your own ideas from evidence and literature; do this in both your field work and your reading.
A word about the content literature. In many studies you dont know the relevant literature until data collection and interpretation are under way. This is an important part of being responsive to the situation. As you reach a tentative interpretation of your data, go to the library and search out disconfirming evidence and argument. You can then reach your conclusions with more confidence, and any resulting action can be better informed.
Chapters on the thesis contribution to knowledge
Most of the remaining thesis can be organised around the major findings which your study has made. You might give the most important of these a chapter each. Subsidiary findings might then be grouped together in a further chapter. To decide what to include, you might ask yourself: what is the contribution to knowledge of this thesis? What is now understood that was less well understood before?
These contributions are likely to fall into one or more of the following categories...
- to action research methodologies or methods;
- to the client system, and perhaps (with extreme caution) to other similar systems; and
- to possible changes to the client system, and perhaps (with extreme caution) to changes in other settings.
If your conclusions fall into several of these categories, the logical order is probably as given above. Methodological findings also have implications for system findings, and so precede them. System findings have implications for findings about change, which therefore come last. If there are no methodological findings you may still find it advantageous to include a chapter on the methodological problems you faced, and the implications they have for the conclusions which follow. It is important that you are critical about the shortcomings of your methodology without making too much a tale of woe out of it.
Each of the chapters on your conclusions might, as an example, have a structure something like this...
- As an introduction, a one-sentence summary of the finding.
- A more extended discussion of the finding.
- A summary of the dialectic informing the finding -- that is, the evidence from your study for and against. If there is no contrary evidence, explicitly say so, and reiterate what you did to seek it out.
- A summary of the relevant literature, for and against. Again, if you are unable to find any disconfirming literature, say so and explain how you attempted to find it. Dont confine yourself to literature from the same field, but try to access relevant literature from other fields.
- Any qualifications or implications of the finding, taking evidence and literature into account.
- A very cautious paragraph or three on the wider implications of what you have found.
This final point can be problematic. As I have argued, action research often emphasises local relevance (that is, responsiveness) at the cost of global relevance (that is, generalisation). When change is one of the intended outcomes this is a sensible trade. However, a few examiners may not see it that way. Some people (not all) judge any piece of research according to the criteria and ideology of their preferred paradigm.
You have to make a case according to the rules of their game, not of your own, or find a wider set of rules that let both of you appear correct. Perhaps it isnt fair but it happens to be one of the costs of working within a paradigm that isnt yet part of the mainstream.
Style and fluency
The prior description provides the bare bones. In addition it is important to pay attention to the way in which you say what you have to say. This is partly a matter of structure, and partly a matter of the "tone of voice" in which you write.
Structure applies to the thesis as a whole, to the major sections within it, and to the sentence by sentence expression. An effective thesis flows from chapter to chapter, so that there are no unpleasant surprises for a reader. It is useful for each chapter to begin with a sentence or two which previews what is to come. At the end of each chapter a brief summary, in one or two sentences, can restate the chapters contents. The thesis as a whole is best preceded by an abstract and followed by a summary of conclusions.
At the level of sentences and paragraphs, it is worth remembering that your purpose is to be understood. This will be most effectively achieved if you use simple language in short, simple sentences. If the spell-checker on your computer gives readability scores, experiment with trying to achieve the clarity of Hemingway or the Bible. (I offer this with some misgivings, as I suspect some examiners are actually impressed by material which is highly technical and difficult to read.)
The tone to aim for, I think, is one of intelligent and careful reason coupled with tolerance for other approaches. Unless you are planning to upset your examiners you will not criticise conventional research methodology at all. You will not even say anything which implies criticism. Conventional research is fine (as indeed it is). Quantification is excellent (as indeed it is). It is just that the research situation demanded responsiveness, and action research provided that responsiveness. In your choice of methodology and method you have built as much rigour as possible into a qualitative action research methodology. When you argue for your approach it is less risky to use other peoples arguments rather than your own wherever possible. But present those arguments in ways which demonstrate your own scholarship and insight.
If you are quoting people like Argyris or Guba or Kemmis, paraphrase them to remove the polemics or evangelism. It is perfectly correct for mainstream researchers to pick your methodology to bits if you leave them an opening; it is a serious faux pas for you even to suggest that their ideology is at all questionable. Use the large and growing literature which is critical of mainstream research to understand the issues. Avoid it in your own thesis.
This is an exercise in explaining why action research is appropriate. It is not an attempt to attack other research methods or change the attitudes of examiners. In fact, sometimes you are safer quoting authors who, like Chalmers (1982, 1990) and Phillips (1992), are critical of much current qualitative research.
Avoid the pernicious habit of sticking a name and a date at the end of each sentence. This style of referencing doesnt give the reader much information. Does it mean that this is a paraphrase of what the cited author said? Or is there some phrase or word in your sentence which the author used? Or is it merely relevant in some indirect way? Explain what the author said, and on what basis -- research, experience, opinion... Distinguish between your ideas and those of the author, and be sure to provide evidence or argument to support your own ideas. Be analytical of the authors evidence and argument. Most examiners approve of originality and creativity and critical insight, but only if it is well argued for.
Somewhere, perhaps in each of the chapters on your contribution to knowledge, identify the methodological factors and evidence which are inconsistent with your interpretations. Allow for alternative explanations of your data. Admit any shortcomings, preferably in a way which also explains why they were a reasonable choice at the time. If the study has been carefully conducted this need not be a substantial section. Dont overdo it.
Somewhere, perhaps again in the chapters on contribution, discuss the wider implications of your findings. Most examiners value generalisation highly. Action research sacrifices generalisation (which is global relevance) to local relevance. It cannot otherwise be sufficiently responsive. Apart from methodological findings, which probably do generalise well, treat any generalisation with extreme caution. But, to the extent that you can, it is worth defining the generalised implications.
Finally, dont assume that I have provided a complete description of the thesis. Leave nothing out. Craft your thesis into a logical, fluent, carefully-argued work. It is better to do a little, and do it superbly, than to do a lot and do it at a standard which is merely very good.
In summary...
Let me try to summarise the main points I have tried to make...
- Action research is more applicable than mainstream research methods in situations requiring responsiveness and flexibility and action. It may be more relevant for practitioners. It is more difficult and it is riskier. The best reason for choosing it is that it fits the research setting, suits your preferences and your career aspirations, you are willing if necessary to risk a lower mark, and you know that it is demanding.
- It is, above all, a method for yielding simultaneous action and research outcomes. It is able to do this because it adapts to the situation. To achieve adequate rigour it does this within a reflective spiral. Each turn of the spiral integrates theory and practice, understanding and action, and informs the next turn.
- Because it is intervention and research, it draws upon intervention procedures and research procedures. It is usually (though not necessarily) participative. Entry and contracting are important.
- the need for the study;
- the paradigm (action research);
- the use of qualitative data;
- the methodology (for example, participative action research, action science, soft systems methodology, or evaluation); and
- the actual methods used to collect and interpret data.
- using a cyclic approach, with each cycle involving data collection, interpretation, and literature search;
- as far as possible working at any time with two or more sources of information ("dialectic"); and
- testing your interpretations stringently by searching out exceptions to the explanations, and explanations of the ambiguities.
- An introductory chapter provides some context. It explains the need for the study, for example by identifying urgent needs for action or shortcomings in existing theory or practice. It previews the original contribution which the thesis makes. If there is relevant content literature it may be summarised here.
- A methodology chapter explains the approach taken. It carefully sets out the reason for each step and clearly describes how rigour is achieved.
- A separate chapter presents each major finding. In each of these chapters, clearly present the conclusions you have reached, the dialectic from which they were derived, the relevant confirming and disconfirming literature, and the status of your conclusions.
This is not intended to be a complete description.
_____
I sincerely thank Wendy Baruksopulo, Karyn Healy, Pam Swepson, Paul Wildman and Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
_____ References and bibliography including a partly-annotated beginners guide to reading in qualitative action research
A number of works are listed, about half of them with brief annotations. I am also slowly adding call numbers for those in the University of Queensland library (and some others). When I have known of several suitable works I have favoured books and articles available in the University of Queensland library when I have known of them. All of the works cited in the paper are included in this bibliography. In addition I have also listed some other useful literature on qualitative research, action research, evaluation, and methodology and philosophy of applied social research generally.
I have marked with "" some works which I think provide a good starting point, and with "" those that might provide a follow-up to these. The preceding paper also gives guidance -- I suggest you take it, and your own situation and skills and experiences and preferences, into account
Adelman, C., Kemmis, S. and Jenkins, D. (1983) Rethinking case study, in Bartlett, L., Kemmis, S. and Gillard, G., eds., Case study on overview . Victoria: Deakin University. Agar, Michael H. (1986) Speaking of ethnography . Beverly Hills: Sage. UQL Cent Ug GN345.A34 1986 Altrichter, Herbert (1991) Do we need an alternative methodology for doing alternative research? In Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt, ed., Action research for change and development . Aldershot: Gower. Argues that the differences between traditional and alternative research have been overestimated The process of validating any study is itself a second research study and subject to challenges to its validity. UQL Biol H62.A43 1991 Anders, D.J. (1966) Action research. In S. Kemmis and R. McTaggart, eds., The action research reader , third ed [pp 317-321]. Victoria: Deakin University. A brief overview UQL Cent Ug Biol Thatcher LB1028.24.K46 1988 Anderson, Liane (1993) Espoused theories and theories in use: bridging the gap. (Breaking through defensive routines with organisation development consultants). Unpublished MPsychOrg dissertation, Department of Psychology, The University of Queensland. Antaki, C., ed. (1988) Analysing everyday explanation: a casebook of methods . Newbury Park: Sage. Many qualitative techniques depend upon some form of discourse analysis (the analysis of written or spoken language). This book discusses some of the methods. UQL Cent BD237.A5 1988 Argyris, Chris (1970) Intervention theory and method: a behavioural science view . Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. UQL Cent HD38.A682 1970 Argyris, Chris (1976) Problems and new directions in industrial psychology. In Dunnette, Marvin M., Handbook of industrial and organisational psychology . Chicago: Rand McNally. UQL Ug HF5548.8.H265 1976 Argyris, Chris (1980) Inner contradictions of rigorous research . New York: Academic Press. Some of the features of traditional empirical research are taken for granted, and their disadvantages not recognised. Argyris argues, here and elsewhere, that traditional research has its own threats to rigour. UQL Cent Q180.55.S62A73 1980 Argyris, Chris (1983) Action science and intervention. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science , 19, 115-140. UQL Cent PER BF1.J55 Argyris, Chris (1985), Strategy, change and defensive routines . Boston: Pitman. UQL Cent HD58.8.A755 1985 Argyris, Chris (1990), Overcoming organisational defences: facilitating organisational learning . Boston: Allyn & Bacon. UQL on order [cip:] HD58.8.A753 1990 Argyris, Chris; Putnam, Robert and Smith, Diana McLain (1985) Action science: concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention . San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass. Offers a methodology for researching social systems in ways which gain more valid data while treating those researched as mature and responsible adults. In effect it is equivalent to a form of participative action research, with particular attention given to generating more valid information. UQL Cent H62.A663 1985 Argyris, Chris & Schön, Donald A. (1974), Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness . San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass. UQL Cent Ug Econ Herston LC1059.A731974 Argyris, Chris & Schön, Donald A. (1978), Organisational learning: a theory of action perspective , New York: McGraw-Hill. UQL Cent HD58.8.A751978 Argyris, C.hris, and Schön, Donald A. (1989) Participative action research and action science compared: a commentary. American Behavioural Scientist , 32, 612-623. Most social research, including most action research, the authors argue, is fundamentally flawed because the researcher cannot guarantee the validity of the information provided. The unspoken rules which govern social interaction prevent some issues being discussed. Action science, by creating a more open relationship between researcher and researched, and by surfacing and confronting the rules, enables valid data to be collected. UQL Cent Ug PER H1.A472 Argyris, Chris and Schön, Donald A. (1991), Participative action research and action science compared: a commentary. In W.F. Whyte, ed., Participatory action research . Newbury Park: Sage [85-96]. UQL Cent H62.P295 1990 Armeratus, A., Bederan, A. and Pond, S. (1983) Research issues in OD evaluation: past present and future. Academy of Management Review , 8, 320-325. UQL Cent PER HD28.A245 Armstrong, J. Scott (1985) Long-range forecasting: from crystal ball to computer , second edition. New York: Wiley A readable and informative overview of group processes and techniques, most of which can be used for purposes in addition to forecasting. Summarises the research on many of the techniques. Apart from that, it is worth getting for the annotated bibliography. UQL HB3730.A57 1978 Bannister, D. and Fransella, F. (1986) Inquiring man: the psychology of personal constructs , 3rd edition. London: Croom Helm. There is a complex theory (personal construct theory) and methodology (repertory grid) for investigating peoples perceptions. This is one of a number of books by these authors which discuss personal construct theory. Unlike most individual-centred techniques, it is reasonably well regarded in academic circles. UQL Cent BF698.B3143 1986 Barlow, D.H., Hayes, S.C., and Nelson, R.O. (1984), The scientist practitioner: research and accountability in clinical and educational settings . New York: Pergamon. Reports an empirical study of practitioner training for psychologists in the USA. Most schools continue to use a scientist practitioner model despite evidence that most psychological practitioners dont do research, and dont even read all that much. UQL Cent Herston RC467.B361984 Bartlett, L., Kemmis, S. and Gillard, G., eds. (1983) Case study on overview . Victoria: Deakin University.
UQL Cent PER BF1.J55
Bawden, Richard (1991) Towards action researching systems. In O. Zuber-Skerrit, ed., Action research for change and development . Aldershot: Gower.
A well-illustrated account of some of the models Bawden uses in his extensive practice of action research. Readable, and with depth.
UQL Biol H62.A43 1991
Beer, Michael; and Walton, Anna Elise (1987) Organisation change and development. Annual Review of Psychology , 38, 339-367.
An account of the difficulties of researching social systems, this especially questions the use of causal rather than systems models, the sacrifice of relevance for precision, the ignoring of the environmental context, and the tendency to ignore the needs of users. "Change is not brought about by following a grand plan but by continually readjusting directions and goals".
UQL Cent Ug PER BF30.A56
Bell, G. (1990), An evaluation of a public welfare organisation using Snyders 1986 "Evaluation as action research" model . Unpublished MPsychOrg thesis. St Lucia: University of Queensland, Department of Psychology.
UQL Fryer THESIS THE7198
Bellenger, Danny, Bernhardt, Kenneth L., and Goldstucker, Jac L. (1976) Qualitative research in marketing . Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Many marketing research techniques can be pressed into service for action research generally.
UQL Cent HF5415.2.B455 1976
Berg, Bruce L. (1988) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences . Hemel Hempstead, England: Allyn & Bacon.
UQL Cent on order
Bish, A.J. (1992), An action research evaluation of mechanisms for reflection in a postgraduate psychology course . St Lucia: Department of Psychology, unpublished MPsychOrg thesis.
An evaluation of an experiential course in fourth year psychology, using a general action research framework to guide the approach. The most important finding was that it was useful to have a variety of reflective mechanisms, because they enhanced one another, and allowed for individual differences.
UQL Fryer THESIS THE7855
Black, James A. and Champion, Dean J. (1976) Methods and issues in social research . New York: Wiley.
A traditional approach to social research.
UQL Cent Ug H61.B476 1976
Borman, K., LeCompte, M.N., and Goetz, J. (1986) Ethnographic and qualitative research design and why it doesnt work. American Behavioural Scientist , 30, 42-57.
UQL Cent Ug PER H1.A472
Brewer, John & Hunter, Albert (1989) Multimethod research: a synthesis of styles . Newbury Park: Sage.
The purpose of multimethod research is to increase the rigour of research. It is assumed that some of the systematic biases of different methods cancel each other out. See also "triangulation".
UQL Cent Herston H62.B658 1989
Brown, A. and Heller, F. (1981) Usefulness of group feedback analysis as a research method: its application to a questionnaire study. Human Relations , 34, 141-156.
Group feedback analysis is in effect a small-group method for survey feedback. It therefore lends itself to research which achieves change through working directly with small groups; but can be used with several such groups to allow results to be collated over larger numbers. Heller is the person who devised group feedback analysis, and has written in several papers on its use for combined research and intervention.
UQL Cent PER H1.H8
Bryant, Fred B.; Edwards, John; Tindale, R. Scott; Posavac, Emil J.; Heath, Linda; Henderson, Eaaron; and Suarez-Balcazar, Yolanda, eds. (1992) Methodological issues in applied social psychology . New York: Plenum.
A collection of papers on methods, methodologies and issues in social research. Qualitative and quantitative methods are addressed, and current developments receive attention.
UQL Cent on order [cip:] HM251.M4533 1992
Burrell, Gibson, and Morgan, Gareth (1985) Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life . London: Heinemann.
UQL Biol HM131.B833 1985 [1979: UQL Cent]
Cameron, Deborah; Frazer, Elizabeth; Harvey, Penelope; Rampton, M.B.H.; and Richardson, Kay (1992) Researching language: issues of power and method . London: Routledge.
This book, written from a number of different disciplinary perspectives, focuses on the relationship between researcher and researched. It discusses some of the ways in which the usual power difference can be minimised, with particular attention to the researching of language and the language of research.
[cip:] P126.R47 1992
Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Chicago: Rand McNally.
The positivist bible for field research and an important contribution to the practical literature on methodology. Positivist research is seen as the ideal. Research designs which fall short of true experiments are subject to various threats to validity which must be addressed in one way or another. The approach may sell qualitative research short, but the issues are issues which require addressing in one way or another.
UQL Cent Ug Biol Q175.C23 1966
Carey, Martha Ann and Smith, Mickey W. (1992) Enhancement of validity through qualitative approaches: incorporating the patients perspective. Evaluation and the Health Professions , 15(1), 107-114.
Qualitative and participative methods are used to refine a research program into HIV. A number of participative methods are described. The authors conclude that the participative methods were of value in designing the program.
UQL Cent PER RA399.A1E9
Carr, Wilfred and Kemmis, Stephen (1986) Becoming critical: education knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press. [Available from Deakin UP]
A strongly-put case for a particular approach to research, using participative action research methods. The form of action research advocated is cyclic, is done by those researched, and incorporates the philosophy of the Frankfurt school. The cycle used is: plan, act, observe, reflect. Valuable.
UQL Cent Ug LB1025.2.C275 1986
Cavallo, Roger (1982) Systems methodology in social science research: recent developments . Boston: Kluwer/Nijhoff.
UQL Cent H62.S98 1982
Centre for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA (1987) Program evaluation kit , 2nd edition. Newbury Park: Sage.
Contents: v.1 Evaluators handbook. - v.2 How to focus an evaluation. - v.3 How to design a program evaluation. v.4 How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. - v.5 How to assess program implementation. - v.6. How to measure attitudes. - v.7 How to measure performance and use tests. - v.8 How to analyse data. - v.9 How to communicate evaluation findings
UQL Cent Biol Herston QTO LB2806.P76 1987
Chalmers, Alan F. (1982) What is this thing called science?: an assessment of the nature and status of science and its methods , 2nd edition. St. Lucia, Qld.: University of Queensland Press.
A critical but understanding discussion of current views in the philosophy of science. This is a readable account from an author who has the capacity to review sympathetically the work of people with whom he disagrees. He argues against a single scientific method, but claims that there are some best practices which nevertheless allow a scientific method to be defended or criticised. There is a readable summary of the important views of philosophers Lakatos and Feyerabend.
UQL Cent Ug Fryer Q175.C46 1982
Chalmers, Alan F. (1990) Science and its fabrication . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
An expansion and clarification of the arguments he put forward in Chalmers (1982). He restates his position that any particular scientific methodology is to be evaluated against the aims of that form of science. His argument is mainly about the physical sciences but appears to allow extension to the social sciences.
UQL Cent Ug Q175.C4457 1990
Chambers, Robert (1981) Rapid rural appraisal: rationale and repertoire. Public Administration and Development , 1, 95-106.
Rapid rural appraisal is a participative and qualitative diagnostic technique used frequently in rural settings, especially agricultural extension.
UQL Cent JA8.P82
Checkland, Peter (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice . Chichester: Wiley.
An important book on a methodology for analysing and intervening in social systems. Systems concepts are used qualitatively to understand a social system, devise more effective ways of achieving its outcomes, and planning improvement. The first half of the book presents one of the most closely argued defences of action research as a legitimate research paradigm.
UQL Cent Ug Q295.C45 1981
Checkland, Peter (1992) From framework through experience to learning: the essential nature of action research. In C.S. Bruce and A.M. Russell, Transforming tomorrow today (2nd World Congr. on Action Learning). Brisbane: Action Learning Action Research & Process Management Assn
In this conference paper Checkland identifies soft systems methodology as action research. He criticises most action research for lacking an adequate, well argued methodological framework.
Checkland, Peter and Scholes, Jim (1990) Soft systems methodology in action . Chichester: Wiley.
An account, liberally illustrated with specific examples, of soft systems methodology.
UQL Cent Biol Q295.C449 1990
Chen, Huey-Tsyh (1990) Theory-driven evaluations . Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.
UQL Cent H62.C365 1990
Chen, Huey-Tsyh and Rossi, Peter H., eds. (1992) Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations . New York: Greenwood Press.
UQL on order
Clark, Alf W., ed. (1976) Experimenting with organisational life: the action research approach . New York: Plenum.
Papers on action research in organisations.
UQL Cent Ug H62.E94 1976
Clark, Peter A. (1972) Action research and organisational change . London: Harper and Row.
This useful book includes, among other things, a discussion of different consulting styles and their advantages and disadvantages.
UQL Cent HM131.C55 1972
Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1989), Research methods in education , 3rd edition. London: Croom Helm.
UQL Ug Thatcher LB1028.C572 1989
Cook, Thomas D. and Campbell, Donald T. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings . Chicago, Ill.: Rand McNally.
Ways of improving the rigour of field research when "true experiments" can not be conducted.
UQL Cent Ug H62.C63 1979
Cook, Thomas D. and Reichardt, Charles S. (1979) Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research . Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
UQL Cent H62.A1Q34
Cook, Thomas D. and Shadish, W.R. (1986) Program evaluation: the worldly science. Annual Review of Psychology , 37, 193-232.
A review of current issues in evaluation, and an acknowledgment that dealing with a complex and demanding reality has required the abandonment of positivist and reductionist approaches.
Corey, Marianne Schneider; and Corey, Gerald (1987) Groups: process and practice, third edition . Belmont, Ca.: Brooks/Cole.
Group dynamics and group facilitation, with special attention to therapeutic groups.
UQL Ug RC488.C59 1987
Cornelius, Helena, and Faire, Shoshana (1989) Everyone can win: how to resolve conflict . Brookvale, NSW: Simon and Schuster.
It is worth reading this book for the material on "Mapping conflicts" alone. The integrated and systematic approach to conflict management described here is that of the Conflict Resolution Network. One of the most easily learned, and easily taught, packages on conflict management.
UQL Cent Herston HM136.C67 1989
Coulthard, Malcolm (1985) An introduction to discourse analysis , new edition. London: Longman
An account of ways of analysing qualitative data in the form of language.
UQL Cent P302.C64 1985
Cox, Fred M.; Erlich, John L.; Rothman, Jack; and Tropman, John E., eds. (1987) Strategies for community organisation: a book of readings, 4th edition. Itasca: Peacock.
An informative collection of papers on community organising and community development by some of the leading writers in the field. A mix of theory and practice.
UQL Ug HV41.S82 1987
Crabtree, Benjamin F. and Miller, William L., eds. (1992) Doing qualitative research . Newbury Park: Sage.
The papers in this book cover the stages of the research process using qualitative methods, including some case studies. Although the emphasis is on medical research (especially primary health care), it provides a convenient and readable overview of qualitative research methods.
[cip:] R853.S64D65 1992
Craig, Dorothy (1978) Hip pocket guide to planning and evaluation . San Diego: University Associates.
Intended for the lay reader, this is a clear exposition of a change-oriented approach to evaluation. Dont be put off by its age -- its good. In workbook format, it is readable and systematic enough to follow in step-by-step fashion if necessary. You can use it as a general introduction to evaluation for practitioners. The "hip pocket" of the title must refer to the price, as it certainly doesnt fit in my hip (or overcoat) pocket.
[cip:] HD3028.C7
Cronbach, Lee J.; Ambron, Sueann R.; Dornbusch, Sanford M.; Hess, Robert D.; Hornik, Robert C.; Phillips, D.C.; Walker, Decker F.; and Weiner, Stephen S. (1980) Toward reform of program evaluation: aims, methods and institutional arrangements . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
A wide-ranging account of current issues in program evaluation.
UQL Cent H62.T591980
Cummings, Thomas G. and Huse, Edgar (1989) Organisation development and change , 4th edition. St Paul: West.
The fourth edition of one of the "bibles" (previous editions by Huse, or Huse and Cummings). More research oriented than most OD books, it draws heavily on research (especially North American) on organisational behaviour and similar topics. If you want a general handbook on OD, you could do worse than this. The earlier editions are by Huse and Cummings, or Huse alone.
UQL [1985:] HM131.H7931985
Davies, Lynda and Ledington, Paul (1991) Information in action: soft systems methodology . Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan.
How to apply Checklands soft systems methodology in practice, written by people who did their doctoral research under Checkland. Easier to follow, and more practical, than Checklands own writing. And the authors are local academics, so you can always ask them directly if you dont understand something.
UQL Cent Biol Q295.D35 1991
Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H. and Gustafson, D.H. (1986) Group techniques for program planning . Middleton, Wis.: Greenbriar.
Detailed descriptions of nominal group technique, which collects information from each person in turn in a group, and delphi, a mail technique for pooling data from a number of experts.
UQL Cent Econ [1975:] HD30.23.D45 1975
Denham, D. (1989), An action research approach to planning a staff development program for a group of secondary school counsellors . Unpublished Masters of Applied Psychology Dissertation, Department of Psychology, The University of Queensland.
This study used a series of very brief action research based processes to conduct research on training needs as part of a series of brief seminars.
UQL Fryer THESIS THE7135
Dick, Bob (1990a) Rigour without numbers: the potential of dialectical processes as qualitative research tools . Brisbane: Interchange.
On the use of processes for data collection and interpretation within an action research framework. The monograph argues that qualitative research methods need not surrender rigour, if carefully designed.
UQL Cent HM251.D495 1990
Dick, Bob (1990b) Convergent interviewing , version 3. Brisbane: Interchange.
An interviewing method which uses structured process, unstructured content, and a procedure for increasing the rigour of qualitative information. It provides more precise and detailed information than can usually be expected from unstructured interviewing methods.
[cip:] 158.3
Dick, Bob (1991) Helping groups to be effective: skills, processes and concepts for group facilitation , 2nd edition. Chapel Hill, Qld.: Interchange.
A balance of concept and practice for the novice or experienced group facilitator or consultant. Covers preliminary activities such as team-building and climate setting, problem-solving, and dealing with emergent problems in group process. There are some detailed "recipes", though with enough conceptual material to aid understanding. Some of the processes can be used by ordinary group members as well as by facilitators.
UQL Cent HD58.9.D53 1991
Dick, B. (1992a), Qualitative evaluation for program improvement. In Managing program evaluation , conference proceedings. Sydney: Institute of International Research. [pp.109-128]
Dick, B. (1992b), Qualitative action research: improving the rigour and economy. In Christine S. Bruce and Anne L. Russell, eds., Transforming tomorrow today: 2nd World Congress on Action Learning . Brisbane: Action Learning, Action Research and Process Management Association. [432-435]
Dick, B. and Dalmau, T. (1990), Values in action: applying the ideas of Argyris and Schön . Chapel Hill, Qld.: Interchange.
An overview of the key ideas of Argyris and Schön is followed by a series of structured processes inspired by Argyris ideas. Some of the processes can be used for action research purposes, reducing the need for the highly skilled facilitation that Argyris approach usually requires.
UQL Cent Biol Ug Thatcher BF441.D521990
Dougherty, A.M. (1990), Consultation: practice and perspectives . Pacific Grove, Ca.: Brooks/Cole.
A readable yet adequately thorough overview of the consulting process. Easy to follow, and systematic enough to be valuable for novices. It gives more than the usual amount of attention to the important entry and contracting phases.
UQL Cent UG BF637.C56D681990
Dubin, Robert (1978) Theory building , revised edition. New York: Free Press.
How to construct theories.
UQL Cent Ug H61.D82 1978
Dunn, J.C. (1991), Social impact assessment - its role, effective use and future in Australia: a practitioners viewpoint . Unpublished Master of Social Planning and Development thesis, Dept of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Queensland.
This study used a mail delphi process to research attitudes of practitioners to social impact assessment, and to collect their predictions for the future.
UQL Fryer THESIS THE7649
Dunphy, D. (1981), Organisational change by choice . Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
An Australian account which achieves a good balance between theory and practice, between big-picture processes and detail. Hasnt dated.
UQL Cent Biol Econ Thatcher HD58.8.D85 1981
Elliott, John (1991) Action research for educational change . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Action research in educational settings.
UQL Ug LB1028.24.E45 1990
Ely, Margot; with Margaret Anzul, Teri Friedman, Diane Garner, and Ann McCormack Steinmetz (1991) Doing qualitative research: circles within circles . London: Falmer Press.
A warm, personal account by a number of people of their approach to a number of forms of qualitative research.
UQL Ug GN345.E481991
Fay, Brian (1987) Critical social science: liberation and its limits . Cambridge: Polity Press.
A series of methodologies have been informed by the philosophy of Habermas and the Frankfurt school of philosophy, including Kemmis critical action research and Jacksons critical systems thinking. In this account Fay sets out the nature of critical theory. This is a more reasoned account than Fays earlier work, which was somewhat evangelical.
UQL Cent Ug H61.F35 1987
Feyerabend, P. (1981), Problems of empiricism . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feyerabend argues for an "anarchistic" approach to the choice of scientific paradigm. The bases of our scientific methodology and philosophy are ideologically rather than empirically based. Each of us should therefore choose deliberately, and deliberately argue for, the paradigm which we adopt.
UQL Cent Q175.F4941981
Fielding, Nigel G. and Fielding, Jane L. (1986) Linking data: The articulation of qualitative and quantitative methods in social research . Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
A well-argued and practical account of how to build triangulation into data collection in social research. Four forms of triangulation are discussed: different data sets (different times or samples), researchers, theories and methods.
UQL Ug H62.F425 1986
Flood, Robert L., and Jackson, Michael C. (1991) Creative problem solving: total systems intervention . Chichester: Wiley.
Flood and Jackson are systems theorists with an interest in organisational applications. This book describes a particular form of systems approach known as total systems intervention or TSI. It can be regarded as a form of systems-based action research which also builds on the theories of the German "critical theorists".
UQL Cent T57.6.F59 1991
Fonow, Mary M. and Cook, Judith A. (1991) Beyond methodology: feminist scholarship as lived research . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
A collection of papers on the philosophies and methodologies of feminist research. Readable, and raises some key issues for consideration in all research.
UQL Cent on order [cip:] HQ1180.B49 1991
Foster, Michael (1972) The theory and practice of action research in work organisations. Human Relations , 25, 529-556.
UQL Cent PER H1.H8
Fransella, Fay and Dalton, Peggy (1990) Personal construct counselling in action. London: Sage.
Counselling applications of personal construct theory and repertory grid.
UQL Cent BF637.C6F735 1990
Fransella, Fay, and Bannister, Don (1977) A manual for repertory grid technique . London: Academic Press.
A theory and method for applying personal construct theory and repertory grid in research.
UQL Cent Ug BF698.8.R38F72 1977
Fransella, Fay, and Thomas, Laurie F., eds. (1988) Experimenting with personal construct psychology . Proceedings of the sixth international congress held at Churchill College, Cambridge, England, Aug. 5-9, 1985. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
UQL Cent Ug BF698.9.P47E96 1988
French, Wendell, and Bell, Cecil H. (1990) Organisation development: behavioural science interventions for organisational improvement , fourth edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Probably the bible in its field. Set firmly within an action research framework, it gives a good mix of history, theory and practice.
UQL Ug HD38.F69 1990
Frost, Peter J. and Stablein, Ralph E., eds. (1992) Doing exemplary research . Newbury Park: Sage.
UQL Cent H62.D617 1992
Gepson, J., Martinko, M., and Belina, J. (1981) Nominal group techniques. Training and Development Journal , Sept., 78-81.
Nominal group technique or NGT or nominal group process is a small group data collection method. People are first allowed individual thinking time, and then each person is asked for a contribution. The contributed items are usually written down, for example on butcher paper, for subsequent use. Can be used within an action research study as a participative data collection process.
UQL Cent PER HF5549.A2T7
Geuss, R. (1981) The idea of a critical theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt school. Cambridge . England: Cambridge University Press.
UQL Cent HM24.G482 1981
Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anselm L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research . Chicago.: Aldine
An important seminal work.
UQL Cent Biol HM48.G43 1968
Glass, G.V. and Ellet, F.S., Jr. (1980) Evaluation research. Annual Review of Psychology , 31, 211-228.
The Annual Review carries reviews of evaluation every few years. You can amuse yourself by noting how much fashions change.
Glidewell, J.C. (1989), The entry problem in consultation. In McLennan, R., ed., Managing organisational change . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
UQL Cent HD58.8.M375 1989
Golembiewski, R.T., Proehl, C.W. and Sink, D. (1982) Estimating the success of OD applications. Training and Development Journal , 36, 86-95.
A successful attempt to change culture, using an approach in the general style of action research.
Gonzales Casanova, Pablo, tr. Susan Beth Kapilian and Georganne Weller (1981) The fallacy of social science research: a critical examination and new qualitative model . New York: Pergamon Press.
UQL Cent H62.G594 1981
Goodall, H.L. Jr. (1984) The status of communication studies in organisational contexts: one rhetoricians lament after a year-long odyssey. Communication Quarterly , 32(2), 133-147.
" Traditional research methods ...tend to encourage simplistic, reductionist assumptions and explanations ... usually at the expense of more complex interpretive possibilities" [p135]
Greene, J., and McClintock, C. (1985) Triangulation in evaluation: design and analysis issues. Evaluation Review , 9(5), 523-545.
Triangulation is the use of multiple research methods simultaneously to increase rigour.
UQL Cent PER HM1.E8
Grundy, Shirley (1982) Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives , 2(3), 23-24.
The three forms Shirley Grundy describes are technical (a research-centred approach), practical (similar to process consultancy), and emancipatory (which removes the distinction between researcher and participant).
[Not UQL]
Grundy, S. (1987), Curriculum: product or praxis ? London: Falmer Press.
UQL Cent Ug Thatcher LB2806.15.G78 1987
Guba, Egon G., ed. (1990) The paradigm dialog . Newbury Park: Sage.
Although it is not apparent in much undergraduate psychology teaching, the positivist research paradigm is being challenged by a variety of other approaches, including in the hard sciences which academic psychology often tries to emulate. This book of readings identifies some of the alternatives and addresses some of the issues. The writers are, generally, anti-positivist in their approaches.
UQL Cent H61.P29 1990
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1981), Effective evaluation: improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
A precursor to the evaluation methodology later names "fourth generation evaluation".
UQL Cent Ug AZ191.G8 1981
Guba, Egon G. and Lincoln, Yvonna S. (1989) Fourth generation evaluation . Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage
A detailed description and justification for an approach to evaluation which is very similar to participatory action research.
UQL Cent AZ191.G82 1989
Gummesson, Evert (1991) Qualitative methods in management research . Newbury Park: Sage.
A wide-ranging examination of qualitative research, its philosophy and practice, with reference to management research.
UQL Cent Biol HD30.4.G85 1991
Heller, F.A. (1970), Group feedback analysis as a change agent. Human Relations , 23, 319-333.
Group feedback analysis or GFA is a structured action research method which provides a small-group substitute for survey feedback. Hellers approach is focussed more on research than action, and isnt particularly cyclic, but does involve the participants directly in interpreting the data they provide. It is not difficult to convert it to a more action-oriented method without surrendering the research outcomes.
Heller, F.A. (1976), Group feedback analysis as a method of action research. In A.W. Clark, Experimenting with organisational life . New York: Plenum.
An account of the practical use of group feedback analysis, which Heller devised. The joint pursuit of action and research outcomes is evident in this report.
Herman, Joan L.; Morris, Lynn Lyons; and Fitz-Gibbons, Carol Taylor (1987) Evaluators handbook , 2nd edition. Newbury Park: Sage.
UQL Ug QTO H61.H455 1987
Hermann, S.M. and Korenich, M. (1977), Authentic management: a gestalt orientation to organisations and their development . Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
If a consultant can adopt the openness and directness in relationships that Gestalt psychology recommends, this provides a firm foundation for effective consultancy. A refreshing account, as timely now as when it was written.
UQL Cent Ug HD58.8.H47 1977
Heron, J. (1989) The facilitators handbook , London: Kogan Page.
A readable account of the theory and practice of group facilitation, it also includes a useful overview of stages of group development. Material on experiential learning, and facilitating learning groups, is also covered.
UQL Cent HM134.H46 1989
House, Ernest R. (1980) Evaluating with validity . Beverly Hills: Sage.
UQL Cent Ug H62.H64 1980
House, Ernest R. (1990) An ethics of qualitative field studies. In Egon S. Guba, ed., The paradigm dialog . Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.
Huck, S.W. and Sandler, H.M. (1979) Rival hypotheses: alternative interpretations of data-based conclusions . New York: Harper and Row.
A large collection of published studies for which alternative interpretations can be offered.
UQL Cent Ug H61.H87 1979
Jackson, Michael C. (1991) Systems methodology for the management sciences . New York: Plenum.
Presents and critiques a number of systems-based intervention methods: systems theory, soft systems methodology, cybernetics, critical systems, operational research, and creative problem solving.
UQL Cent T56.N46 1987
Jick, T.D. (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly , 24, 602-611.
An important paper on the virtues of combining several research methods within a single study to increase rigour.
UQL Cent PER HD28.A25
Kemmis, Stephen (1991) Improving education through action research. In O. Zuber-Skerritt, Action research for change and development . Aldershot: Gower. [pp 57-75]
Kemmis, Stephen; and McTaggart, Robin, eds. (1988) The action research planner , third edition. Victoria: Deakin University.
Stephen Kemmis and Robin McTaggart teach action research to educators at Deakin University. Their approach is participative and critical. They are also probably one of the important reasons which education is one of the more active disciplines in the use of action research in Australia. They tend not to be accepting of approaches other than their own, and you will find it useful to supplement this valuable resource with other reading in the area.
UQL Cent Ug Biol Thatcher LB1028.24.K46 1988
Kirk, Jerome and Miller, Marc L. (1986) Reliability and validity in qualitative research . Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
A discussion of the issues of reliability and validity as they apply in qualitative research. Advances the argument that qualitative research often achieves greater validity (especially ecological validity) at the cost of reduced reliability. A highly recommended overview of rigour in qualitative research methods.
UQL Cent Ug Herston GN346.4.K57 1986
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development . Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
A research-based account of the experiential learning cycle, and its history. Integrates the work of many of the key early names in learning theory. More academic than practical, but nevertheless useful for practical understanding.
UQL Cent Phys Thatcher LB1067.K631984
Kress, George (1988) Marketing research (third edition). Prentice-Hall, London.
This book describes various techniques used in marketing research to collect and analyse data. Many of the techniques can be used for other qualitative research purposes.
[Not UQL?]
Krueger, Richard A. (1988) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research . Newbury Park: Sage.
UQL Cent Herston H62.K754 1988
Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions , 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
A scientific paradigm isnt abandoned because it has holes in it. Only when a better alternative appears to be available is a paradigm abandoned.
UQL Cent Ug Phys ... Q121.I5V.2NO.2 1970
Lakatos, I. (1972), Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A., eds., Criticism and the growth of knowledge , London: Cambridge University Press.
Scientific ideologies consist of a foundation, which will be defended vigorously, and peripheral beliefs which can be changed in the light of disconfirming evidence. The foundation beliefs are often not testable.
UQL Cent Ug Thatcher Q175.I514 1965
Lakatos, Imre; and Musgrave, A., eds. (1972) Criticism and the growth of knowledge . London: Cambridge University Press.
Papers on the epistemology of science, with some emphasis on post-positivist and related approaches.
Lave, Charles A., and March, James G. (1975) An introduction to models in the social sciences . New York: Harper & Row.
If you are interested in marrying conceptual and empirical analysis, this book is worth reading.
UQL Cent H61.L342 1975
Lawler, E.E. (1985), Challenging traditional research assumptions. In E.E. Lawler, A.M. Mohrman, S.A. Mohrman, G.E. Ledford, and T.G. Cummings, eds., Doing research that is useful for theory and practice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [1-17].
Lawler, Edward E., III; Mohrman, A.M. Jr.; Mohrman, S.A.; Ledford, G.E. Jr.; and Cummings, T.G., eds. (1985) Doing research that is useful for theory and practice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Some of the leading qualitative researchers in North America identify the issues and compare notes on their experience. Underlying many of the papers is a concern that many of the research methods that are required in the field have still to establish their legitimacy in the eyes of mainstream research.
UQL Cent HD58.7.D65 1985
Lewin, Kurt (1946) Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues , 2, 34-46.
Kurt Lewin is the person usually credited with the development of action research as a participative, cyclic research approach directed towards both research and action.
Lewin, K. (1948), Resolving social conflicts: selected papers on group dynamics . New York: Harper.
Lewin wrote surprisingly little, but was very influential on the whole social and organisational change movement with what he wrote. He advocated a group-based, participative approach to change, and is credited (with some others) of developing action research as a research paradigm. This is a collection of some of his papers.
UQL Cent HM251.L474 1948
Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Guba, Egon G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry . Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
UQL Cent B828.2.L56 1985
Linn, Robert L. and Erickson, Frederick (1990) Qualitative methods . London: Collier Macmillan.
UQL Cent LB1028.25.U6L55 1990
Lofland, John and Lofland, Lyn H. (1984) Analysing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis , 2nd edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, Ca.
Probably the most widely known and used introductory text on qualitative research approaches using participant observation. I dont think I would risk using participant observation as a prominent part of a psychological thesis, but its a technique which can be a useful adjunct to other qualitative methods.
UQL [1971 edition] Cent Ug ArchMus HM48.L63 1971
Lynch, K.B. (1983) Qualitative and quantitative evaluation: two terms in search of meaning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 5, 461-464.
UQL Cent PER LB2805.E365
Manning, Kathleen (1992) A rationale for using qualitative research in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development , 33(2), 132-136.
Qualitative methods are used to research student affairs. The paper discusses reasons for using qualitative methods, and addresses some issues of concern. It concludes that qualitative research methodology reflects and parallels the complexity and richness of the field studied.
Marshall, Catherine, and Rossman, Gretchen B. (1989) Designing qualitative research . Newbury Park: Sage.
An introductory overview, sufficiently detailed for use as a guide during the design of research.
UQL Cent H62.M277 1989
Martin, Paul & Bateson, Patrick (1986) Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide . Cambridge University Press.
About measuring animal behaviour, though it has other applications.
UQL Biol QL751.M255 1986
Martin, P.R. (1989), The scientist practitioner model and clinical psychology: time for change? Australian Psychologist , 24(1), 71-92.
English and Australian university psychology departments are still committed to the scientist-practitioner model of professional training. It does not appear to lead to practitioners reading or doing much research. An empirical study (cf. Barlow et al, 1984, for similar US findings).
McCracken, Grant (1988) The long interview . Newbury Park: Sage.
In depth interviewing is a common initial data-collection technique in qualitative research, and in field research and intervention generally. This discusses how, and also relates it to issues in qualitative research generally. It is worth reading both for its discussion of the long interview, and for the overview it provides of key issues in qualitative research.
UQL Cent H61.28.M37 1988
McDonald, Geoffrey T. (1974) Factorial ecology of the Brisbane urban area, report submitted to the Dept. of Urban and Regional Development. St Lucia: Department of Geography, University of Queensland.
A method for putting together a random sample in Brisbane by choosing a proportion of subjects from various suburbs and then selecting at random within those suburbs.
UQL ArchMus QTO HT169.A82B745 1974
McKernan, J. (1991), Curriculum action research: a handbook of methods and measures for the reflective practitioner . London: Kogan Page.
McTaggart, Robin (1991) Action research: a short modern history . Geelong, Vic: Deakin University.
As the title says, a short modern history. The emphasis is on action research within education.
UQL Cent Biol LB1028.24.M32 1991
McTaggart, Robin (1992) Study a graduate course in participatory action research: an initiative in interactive global pedagogy . Posted from [email protected] to list EDAD-L <[email protected]> 2 Oct 1992. [Also available as topic 133, Deakin online course , on the conference ed.online on the Pegasus network <peg.apc.org>.]
This electronic document, posted to a mailing list and on electronic conferences (newsgroups, in the AARNet world) describes an online course in action research first offered in February 1993 by Deakin University.
Merriam, Sharan B. (1988) Case study research in education: a qualitative approach . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
UQL Thatcher LB1028.M396 1988
Miles, M. (1979) Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly , 24, 590-595.
Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman (1984) Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods . Newbury Park: Sage.
A convenient handbook which gathers together in one place a number of methods for qualitative data analysis. The descriptions are detailed and practical.
UQL Cent QTO H62.M437 1984
Miller, Delbert Charles (1991) Handbook of research design and social measurement , 5th edition. Newbury Park: Sage.
UQL Cent H62.M44 1991
Morgan, David L. (1988) Focus groups as qualitative research . Newbury Park: Sage.
Focus groups (= focussed group interviews) are a regular tool for market research. They are one of a series of techniques which can begin in open-ended fashion and the become more focussed as they progress. They can be used for qualitative research generally, as this practical account demonstrates. In some respects they combine some of the advantages of interviewing in focussing the discussion, while collecting information in a social situation rather than from an individual informant.
UQL Cent Herston H61.28.M671988
Morgan, Gareth, ed. (1983) Beyond method: strategies for social research . Beverly Hills: Sage.
UQL Cent Ug H62.B474 1983
Moustakas, Clark (1990) Heuristic research: design, methodology, and applications . Newbury Park: Sage.
Moustakas describes a very reflective, self-oriented form of research in which illumination arises from self-dialogue. He offers a six-stage process: initial engagement, immersion, incubation, illumination, explication, and creative synthesis. This process bears some resemblance to other non-positivist research methodologies.
UQL Cent BD260.M68 1990
Neimeyer, Robert A. (1985) The development of personal construct psychology . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
UQL Cent BF698.9.P47N45 1985
Neuman, William Lawrence (1991) Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
UQL Ug HM48.N48 1991
Noblit, George W. and Hare, R. Dwight (1988) Meta-ethnography: synthesising qualitative studies . Newbury Park: Sage.
Describes a qualitative equivalent of meta-analysis, techniques for combining the results of several studies.
UQL Cent GN345.N63 1988
Oja, Sharon Nodie and Smulyan, Lisa (1989) Collaborative action research: a developmental approach . London: Falmer Press.
Deals with methods and techniques for collaboration in action research. It provides more attention to ways of involving stakeholders than many books in the field.
UQL Ug LB1028.24.O39 1989
Patching, David (1990) Practical soft systems analysis . London: Pitman.
Written more from a practitioner than academic viewpoint, this is a step-by-step account of each of the 7 stages of Checklands model, and some hints which appear to be based on experience in the field. Some other systems models are also described. If you were going to carry out a soft systems analysis without knowing much about it, this would provide you with an easy-to-follow guide.
UQL Cent QA402.P37 1990
Patton, M.Q. (1986), Utilisation-focussed evaluation , 2nd edition. Beverly Hills: Sage.
The first edition (1978) of this book was probably what made Patton a household name in qualitative evaluation. All of his work is readable, and much of it is interesting and even entertaining.
UQL Cent Herston H62.P322 1986
Patton, M.Q. (1982), Practical evaluation . Beverly Hills: Sage.
UQL Cent Herston H62.P32 1982
Patton, Michael Q. (1986) How to use qualitative methods in evaluation . Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
UQL Cent Herston H62.P3216 1987
Patton, Michael Q. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods , second edition. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.
An entertaining and practical account of qualitative research methods in general, and qualitative evaluation in particular. Although somewhat polemical in tone, the book nevertheless presents a compelling defence of the use of qualitative data in some circumstances.
UQL Cent Ug H62.P3218 1990
Peters, M., and Robinson, V. (1984) The origins and status of action research. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science , 20(2), 113-124.
UQL Biol Econ PER H1.J53
Phillips, Denis C. (1987) Philosophy, science, and social inquiry: contemporary methodological controversies in social science and related applied fields of research . Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Taking into account the work of recent leading philosophers, this book canvasses the issues which are being addressed when the scientific status of social research is debated. The views of Feyerabend and Lakatos are considered, as well as Winch, Kuhn and Popper.
UQL Cent H62.P4626 1987
Phillips, Denis C. (1992) The social scientists bestiary: a guide to fabled threats to, and defences of, naturalistic social science . Oxford: Pergamon.
A critical and carefully argued examination of hermeneutics, qualitative research, and other current isms in science. A balanced examination, mostly readable and almost always interesting. Chapter 4, "New philosophy of science", is especially worth reading: p51: "... it can no longer be claimed that there are any absolute authoritative foundations upon which scientific knowledge is based".
[cip:] H61.P542 1992
Phillips, Derek L. (1971) Knowledge from what?: theories and methods in social research . Chicago: Rand McNally.
A critique, sometimes savage, of the methods typically used in social research, including surveys and interviews.
UQL Cent Ug Thatcher HM48.P45 1971
Reason, Peter, ed. (1988) Human inquiry in action: developments in new paradigm research . Newbury Park: Sage.
Papers on a variety of collaborative research methods. Between them they identify the issues, discuss some of the problems, and provide examples of participative research.
UQL Cent HM251.H7945 1988
Reville, M. (1989), An evaluation of the Australian Traineeship System Clothing Machinist program: a new application of systems methodology , Unpublished dissertation, University of Queensland Department of Psychology.
Richardson, Laurel (1990) Writing strategies: reaching diverse audiences . Newbury Park: Sage.
How to write up qualitative reports.
[Not UQL?] PN145.R47 1990
Riley, Judith (1990) Getting the most from your data: a handbook of practical ideas on how to analyse qualitative data . Bristol, UK: Technical and Educational Services.
UQL Ug H62.R52 1990
Rogers, Everett M. (1983) Diffusion of innovations , third edition. New York: Collier-Macmillan.
A compendious account of the diffusion of new farming practices, collated from a massive literature review. It draws on a wider literature than just rural innovation, and is a valuable resource for all change agents. It also presents a summary of the likely progress of attempts at innovation, summarised in a five-stage process: awareness Æ interest Æ trial Æ evaluation Æ action. The second edition is by Rogers and Shoemaker.
UQL Biol HM101.R571983
Rossi, Peter Henry, and Freeman, Howard E. (1989) Evaluation: a systematic approach . Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.
UQL Cent Herston Ug Qto H62.R666 1989
Rutman, L. (ed.) (1984) Evaluation research methods: a basic guide , second edition. Beverly Hills: Sage.
A collection of papers on evaluation methods.
UQL Cent [1977] H62.E891977 [cip:] H62.E85 1984
Sackman, Harold (1975) Delphi critique: expert opinion, forecasting and group process . Lexington, Mass.: Heath
A brief, well-documented, highly-critical review of delphi, which is a group decision making method which has promise for qualitative research. This book also had the unfortunate effect that it killed delphi as a method for decades. It is only now that delphi is beginning to be used once again (and that perhaps partly because many people dont read material over a decade old).
UQL Cent HM73.S23 1975
Sanford, N. (1981) A model for action research, in Reason, P. and Rowan, J., eds., Human inquiry: a source book of new paradigm research , New York: Wiley.
UQL Cent Ug HM251.H794 1981
Schatzman, L. and Strauss, A.L. (1989), Entering into relationships. In McLennan, R., ed., Managing organisational change . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schein, Edgar H. (1988) Process consultation: its role in organisation development, Volume 1 , Second edition, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
A highly recommended account of the process-consultation approach to change, this clear and readable account integrates a lot of complex material in understandable and applicable form.
UQL Ug HD69.C6S28 1988
Scholtes, Peter R. and other contributors (1988) The team handbook: how to use teams to improve quality . Madison, Wis.: Joiner Associates, PO Box 5445, Madison WI 53705-0445)
A very team- and people-oriented account, also very readable, of techniques for total quality management or TQM. One of the best books of its kind, it has wider application.
UQL Cent HD66.S37 1988
Schön, Donald A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , New York: Basic Books.
UQL ArchMus HD8038.A1S35 1983
Schön, Donald A. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner: towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
How do practitioners best learn? Through reflection, Schön argues on the basis of much experience. This is valuable reading for any professional, or anyone involved in educating other professionals. Its readability is a bonus.
UQL Cent Ug Thatcher LC1059.S45 1987
Scriven, M. (1972), Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation. Evaluation Comment , 13, 1-7.
There has been some debate about the appropriateness of goal-based evaluation, led by Scriven. Compare this to Stufflebeam (1972) and Scriven (1991) on the same topic.
UQL Cent PER LB3051.E9
Scriven, Michael (1991) Evaluation thesaurus , fourth edition. Newbury Park: Sage.
If you want to know just about anything about evaluation you can probably find it somewhere here. It is written encyclopedia style, with a long series of alphabetical entries. It contains introductory and more advanced material, and much of it is interesting and readable despite the format.
UQL [1981:] Cent REF AZ191.S37 1981
Sechrest, Lee and Figueredo, A.J. (1993) Program evaluation. In L.W. Porter and M.R. Rosenzweig, eds., Annual Review of Psychology , vol 44. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Inc. [645-674]
This review of program evaluation attributes many of the current changes in evaluation methodology to the pressures of social change. It lists five fundamental issues in program evaluation: how programs develop; how researchers learn about social science; how programs can be valued; how social science knowledge is used; and the practice of evaluation.
Senge, Peter M. (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation . New York: Doubleday.
A beautiful application of systems concepts to explain why social systems are so hard to change and why they develop their peculiar dynamics. Uses systems concepts to develop an explanation of organisational dynamics based on nests of self-fulfilling prophecies. Organisational in orientation, but with wider application.
UQL on order
Shadish, William R., Jr., Cook, Thomas D., and Leviton, Laura C. (1991) Foundations of program evaluation: theories of practice . Newbury Park: Sage.
Within a broader discussion this book presents the views of some of the key theorists in the field of program evaluation. Included are Michael Scriven, Donald Campbell, Carol Weiss, Joseph Wholey, Robert Stake, Lee Cronbach, and Peter Rossi.
UQL Cent H62.S433 1991
Shaffir, William B. and Stebbins, Robert A. (1991) Experiencing fieldwork: an inside view of qualitative research . Newbury Park: Sage.
A collection of papers, mostly interesting and information, on fieldwork. They are grouped under the four phases of getting in, learning the ropes, maintaining relationships, and leaving and staying in touch. In most instances the assumption seems to be that ethnographic methods will be used: that is, that writing-up occurs after the data collection is over. Allowing for that, it is a practical collection which does not overlook the importance of the relationships formed.
UQL Cent H62.E93 1991
Snyder, C.W. (personal communication). Lectures in PY801: Methodology and evaluative skills, The University of Queensland, 1976{?].
Stainback, Susan, and Stainback, William (1988) Understanding and conducting qualitative research . Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children.
An introduction to qualitative research, fairly systematic in its approach. A sufficiently-detailed guide to be useful for those relatively unfamiliar with qualitative research methods.
UQL Cent Ug HA29.S774 1988
Steckler, Allan, et. al (1992) Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: an introduction. Health Education Quarterly , 19(1), 1-8.
Compares qualitative and quantitative approaches, identifies their strengths, and discusses several ways of integrating them.
UQL Herston PER RA440.A1H4
Steers, R.M. (1975) Problems in the measurement of organisational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly , 20, 546-558.
Steier, Frederick, ed. (1991) Research and reflexivity . London: Sage
There is a body of opinion in social research that knowledge is a social construction. Researchers therefore are partners with their informants in discovering what they discover. It follows, then, that the researcher and her/his research process require investigation as part of the study. This collection of papers explores reflexivity, mostly from a practical and methodological viewpoint.
[Not UQL?] H61.R46
Stewart, David W. and Shamdasani, Prem N. (1990) Focus groups: theory and practice . Newbury Park: Sage.
UQL catalogued. On order?
Stewart, Valerie and Stewart, Andrew, with Fonda, Nickie (1981) Business applications of repertory grid . London: McGraw-Hill.
A description of applications of personal construct theory and repertory grid methodology in corporate settings.
UQL Cent BF698.8.R38S7 1981
Stone, Eugene F. (1986) Research methods in industrial and organisational psychology: selected issues and trends. In C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson, International review of industrial and organisational psychology 1986 . New York: Wiley.
A strong advocate of quantitative and experimental approaches to research in industrial and organisational psychology.
UQL Cent Ug PER HF5548.7.I57
Strauss, Anselm (1987) Qualitative analysis for social scientists . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The emphasis is on how to analyse and interpret qualitative data.
UQL Cent H61.S8824 1987
Strauss, Anselm, and Corbin, Juliet (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques . Newbury Park: Sage.
This books presents a reasonably detailed description of a particular approach to data collection. It particularly emphasises interpretation and theory building. Grounded theory is theory closely related to field data: without using their particular method, you may find that the issues you discuss have relevance to your own research.
UQL Cent HA29.S823 1990
Stufflebeam, D.L. (1972) Should or can evaluation be goal free? Evaluation Comment , 13, 4-5.
Compare Scriven (1972, 1991).
UQL Cent PER LB 3051.E9
Suchman, E.A. (1967), Evaluative research: principles and practice in public service and social action programs . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
As with most of the early accounts of evaluation, it was seen as research rather than intervention. The title "evaluation research" was common at the time, and reveals the orientation. Compare this, for instance, to the more recent review article by Cook and Shadish (1986).
UQL Cent Ug Herston H61.S888 1967
Susman, G. (1983) Action research: a sociotechnical systems perspective. In G. Morgan, ed., Beyond method . Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
Susman, G., and Evered, R. (1978) An assessment of the scientific merit of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly , 23(4), 582-603.
Argues for the legitimacy of action research as science by locating its philosophical bases in praxis (e.g. Habermas), hermeneutics (i.e. alternating between whole and parts in a dialectic process), existentialism (choice and values as part of action), process philosophies, and phenomenology (subjective experience as the basis of knowledge).
Taylor, Steven J. (1984) Introduction to qualitative research methods: the search for meanings , 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.
UQL HM24.B612 1984
Tesch, Renata (1990) Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools . London: Falmer Press.
UQL Cent H62.T37 1990
Thompson, Briony M., Donohue, K.J., and Waters-Marsh, T.F. (1992) Qualitative and quantitative approaches to understanding managers perceptions of organisational environments . Paper presented at the 27th Australian Psychological Society Annual Conference, Armidale, September 1992.
A study in which quantitative and qualitative techniques complemented each other. The qualitative technique was convergent interviewing, which added to the data available from quantitative approaches.
Todd, J. (1983) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action, Van Maanen, J., ed. Qualitative methodology . Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
UQL Cent Ug Herston H62.Q35 1983
Ulrich, W. (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: a new approach to practical philosophy . Bern: Haupt.
UQL Cent BJ1031.U47 1983
van Beek, P.G.H. (1989), Managing knowledge systems involving QDPI: an application of soft system analysis to three case studies within the Queensland Department of Primary Industries . University of Queensland. Dept. of Agriculture, Thesis, MAgrSt.
UQL Biol THESIS THE7078
Van Maanen, John, ed. (1983) Qualitative methodology . Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
A collection of papers, updated from a special edition of Administrative Science Quarterly, on different aspects and applications of qualitative methods. Almost all are readable; some present a carefully-argued case for using their particular form of qualitative methodologies. Van Maanens final epilogue is well worth reading.
Van Maanen, John; Dabbs, James M.; and Faulkner, Robert R. (1982) Varieties of qualitative research . Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
UQL Cent HD30.4.V36 1982
Van Maanen, John; Manning, Peter K.; and Miller, Marc L. (1986) Qualitative research methods series. Newbury Park: Sage.
This isnt a book or journal. Its an extremely valuable series of monographs on qualitative research. Those that I have read combine attention to practicability with theoretical soundness and readability. For example, see Fielding and Fielding (1986), Kirk and Miller (1986), McCracken (1988), Richardson (1990), Weller and Romney (1988), and Wolcott (1990).
Some in UQL, various call numbers
Wadsworth, Yoland (1984) Do it yourself social research . Melbourne: Victorian Council of Social Service and Melbourne Family Care Association.
An easy-to-read account written primarily for lay researchers.
UQL Cent HM48.W31 1984
Wadsworth, Yoland (1991) Everyday evaluation on the run . Melbourne: Action Research Issues Assn. Inc.
A very practical account which says a lot in few pages.
Walker, Robert, ed. (1985) Applied qualitative research . Gower, Aldershot.
As well as presenting some general principles of qualitative research, this collection of papers describes some particular techniques. Those addressed include depth interviews, group interviews, participant observation, and projective techniques in market research. There is a final paper on evaluation qualitative research.
UQL Ug Herston Gatton H62.A626 1985
Warren, Carol A.B. (1988) Gender issues in field research . Newbury Park: Sage.
UQL Ug Herston H62.W283 1988
Watson, Richard B. (1992) The nature and construction of conceptual models in soft systems methodology. In C.S. Bruce and A.M. Russell, Transforming tomorrow today (2nd World Congr. on Action Learning). Brisbane: ALARPMA. [423-426]
Soft systems methodology requires developing an ideal model to achieve the same functions that the studied systems intends to achieve. This is, in my view, the least robust stage in Checklands process. This paper offers some guidelines on how to go about it.
Weber, Robert Philip (1990) Basic content analysis . Newbury Park: Sage.
UQL Cent Ug H61.W422 1990
Weller, Susan C. & Romney, A. Kimball (1988) Systematic data collection . Newbury Park: Sage.
This document sits on the border between qualitative and quantitative research. That is, it is directed primarily to techniques which can be used to collect qualitative data and then categorise and interpret it, typically as frequencies.
[Not UQL?] H62.W415 1988
Whyte, William Foote (1991) Participatory action research . Newbury Park: Sage.
A collections of papers, some of them case studies, of research conducted using participatory action research. A complete section deals with research in agriculture.
UQL Cent H62.P295 1990
Whyte, William Foote (1991) Social theory for action: how individuals and organisations learn to change . Newbury Park: Sage.
An account of an action research approach to the management of change, from one of the leading writers in the field. The emphasis is on participative action research in agricultural and organisational settings, using methods which integrate theory and practice.
UQL Biol H62.W457 1991
Williams, David D., ed. (1986) Naturalistic evaluation . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
UQL Cent H62.A1N4NO.30
Winter, Richard (1989) Learning from experience: principles and practice in action research . London: Falmer Press.
Discusses the principles of action research, and then presents some examples to illustrate the approach. The main focus is on educational research, but the issues addresses have wider relevance.
UQL Ug LB1028.24.W55 1989
Wolcott, Harry F. (1990) Writing up qualitative research . Newbury Park: Sage.
This is a well-crafted account of how to go about writing up qualitative research reports, including theses. It is full of practical hints and encouragement while recognising that good writing is usually the result of careful rewriting and rewriting and rewriting. Much good research is spoiled by being poorly written: this offers some ways of doing justice to the research.
UQL Cent T11.W65 1990
Wortman, P.M. (1983) Evaluation research: a methodological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology , 34, 223-260.
Yeaton, William H., and Wortman, Paul M., eds. (1984) Issues in data synthesis . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
UQL Cent H62.A1N4NO.24
Yin, R. (1984) Case study research: design and methods . Beverly Hills: Sage.
UQL Cent Ug Herston H62.Y56 1989
Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun, ed. (1991a) Action research for change and development . Aldershot: Gower.
Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt is the centre of a network of people developing action research methods in Queensland. She is a prolific writer in the field, and is currently [1993] attached to the Tertiary Education Institute at the University of Queensland, where she has originated a number of action research studies in higher education. Her approach is based on that of Kemmis and McTaggart (see above), supplemented by a substantial European literature. This is a collection of papers, preceded by Ortruns own introduction.
Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun, ed. (1991b) Action learning for improved performance . Brisbane: Aebis.
Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun (1992a) Action research in higher education: examples and reflections . London: Kogan Page.
Drawing on the experience of many action research and action learning projects at the University of Queensland, the author demonstrates how learning and teaching can be improved by academics supported by professional development staff.
Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun (1992b) Professional development in higher education: a theoretical framework for action research . London: Kogan Page.
Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt is currently at the Tertiary Education Institute at the University of Queensland. She here details her own theoretical model of action research as she applies it in higher education. She draws on Revans theories of action learning, Kellys Personal Construct theory, Kolbs theory of experiential learning, and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School of philosophy.
[ contents ]
My intention in this afterword is twofold. I wish to make my own biases more explicit. I also wish to identify some issues which I chose to omit from the body of the paper. In addition, this gives me the opportunity to provide some background.
The body of this document began as a brief account of how to do an action research thesis. It was triggered by a number of events happening in close proximity. Preparing a paper on qualitative evaluation led me to think about the sources of responsiveness in action research. Helping to start a series of action research case studies in monograph form built on this thinking. Then two events happened in close proximity. A number of fourth year theses I supervised received almost uniformly low marks although in my eyes their quality varied substantially. And I volunteered to provide some documentation for coursework masters dissertations using action research, to accompany a similar document for other forms of thesis which my colleague Phyllis Tharenou prepared.
This particular document originated as a document for people enrolled in the fourth year of a qualification in psychology. That was the urgent priority at the time. After completing it, I realised it was suitable for coursework masters dissertations too. By then it had become larger than intended; but perusing it persuaded me that the length was justified by the topic.
In its present form it is intended for anyone planning an action research study for thesis purposes. Its target audience consists of people enrolled at the University of Queensland, but some readers convinced me that its application was wider than that too. I had some very encouraging responses from people outside psychology, and at other educational institutions. So here it is.
I enjoyed enormously the reading and thinking that accompanied it. Writing it was rather more painful. In particular I found myself being selective in the information I provided. I think the reasons for my selectivity have something important to say about the paradigm conflict between the dominant experimental and quasi-experimental scientific culture and the counter-cultures which include action research.
Within current philosophy of science it appears that positivism has been replaced by post-positivism (and a range of other philosophies). It is also clear that a large and growing literature in the social sciences is taking those alternative philosophies as a starting point for developing an alternative paradigm. I had caught glimpses of this at a conference on organisational culture during 1991. Some participants actually argued that there was no longer any objective grounds on which one research paradigm could be preferred over another. The only remaining criterion, they thought, was aesthetics. This seemed to me an inadequate basis on which to gauge a theory or explanation (though I prefer the aesthetic to the unaesthetic).
I experienced some difficulty in writing this document. Part of it was to do with the conclusions being drawn in some of the social science literature -- conclusions which to my mind were not adequately supported by the arguments which accompanied them. The other was in deciding what to include in this paper. I can use both of them to illustrate my own position rather more fully than I have chosen to do in the body of this document. In other words, this afterword constitutes something of my own reflection on what preparing this paper has meant to me. To take them in turn...
Although it would take a longer argument than I am prepared to present here, it is clear to me that positivist research is superb for some research settings and purposes, and clearly unsuited to others. It seems to me, further, that any research paradigm has to take some of its beliefs on trust. In other words, every research paradigm is instructed to some extent by ideology. For many researchers this ideology appears to be held in large part as a set of beliefs without reason. In saying this, I dont think I am really adding anything to views which appear as mainstream views in the current philosophical literature.
My experience suggests to me that social change requires a non-positivist approach. This was confirmed by my reading. It appears that many academics who find themselves in the role of change agents are led eventually towards a more flexible approach to research. However, while in sympathy with the actual processes they used in field settings, I thought their supporting arguments were sometimes inadequate.
Constructivism provides one example. The positivist view, or so it seems to me, depends upon reality being directly knowable. Many researchers are opposing this with a view that our theories and language inevitably colour what we see. From this starting point some of them seem almost to conclude that one view is therefore as good as another. Both of these opposing positions appear to me to be polarities which beg resolution.
It seems apparent to me that my mental frameworks colour what I observe. But just as apparent, reality has some influence on my perception. To phrase it differently, my frameworks and reality each account for some of the variance in what I perceive. What is needed, it seems to me, is a philosophy that allows both of these to have a role. I was encouraged to find such views expressed in the philosophical literature.
The disappointment is that, for the most part, these are not issues in the psychological literature. Presumably psychological researchers read and think and observe. But it doesnt reveal itself often in their literature or, as far as I can tell, in their teaching. This was part of my difficulty. How was I to address this clearly and economically? Eventually I decided to omit it from this version of the paper.
More salient for me was the issue of how to address a counter-cultural paradigm at all. There are compelling reasons, I believe, to offer an alternative research paradigm for some purposes . Action research provides such a paradigm, and offers practical benefits to practitioners. (It is clear enough, as I explain in the body of this paper, that most practitioners dont do much formal research. The most likely reason is that they dont find the research methods they have been taught to be easily integrated into their practice.) But action research is counter-cultural. How was I to provide enough information for people doing action research theses without raising the defensiveness of some of my colleagues?
I eventually settled for a sort of dishonesty: a dishonesty, at least, of being selective in what I said. I have focussed on providing enough information for people to make an informed choice about their research methodology. If they decide to use action research, I think I have provided enough guidance for them to reduce the risk in so doing.
What I have chosen not to do is...: to provide a sufficient challenge to some research paradigms for some purposes; to confront the unstated (and often inadequately-substantiated) ideology which many practitioners have been taught; to label the teaching of that ideology as the unintended indoctrination which I believe it is. For their survival, I think, people writing theses have to be dishonest in presenting their own views. To placate their examiners they have to make a weaker argument than logic allows.
To paraphrase the social psychologist Elliot Aronson, if someone knows something is true, without knowing the reasons, then evidence is irrelevant. Confronting such views with evidence and good argument is unproductive. By not addressing the philosophical foundations of research, it seems to me that some methodological teaching inevitably has become something of an ideology.
However, in this afterword let me try to make my own views clearer than I chose to in the body of this document. It seems to me that to judge a research paradigm, it is reasonable to take into account the purpose of the research. To test precise causal hypotheses, fully experimental designs seem most appropriate. It then makes sense to conduct the research in a laboratory where you have sufficient control over the variables. On the other hand, traditional research methods seem ill-suited to achieving understanding and change simultaneously in the field. For these, it seems more appropriate to use a research paradigm which can cope with fuzziness and complexity.
These paradigms dont have equivalent status. You can still safely do positivist research (despite the belief of some contemporary philosophers of science that it is dead). You can have it judged on its merits, or even to some extent sympathetically. There are venues in which it can be published. It has high status.
Action research? It isnt understood. Its difficult to do well. Its not easily publishable. It just happens to be a far better paradigm in some situations and for some purposes , as other paradigms are in other situations and for other purposes.
Aronson, E. (1972) The social animal , New York: Freeman.
"...if research is to jointly contribute to theory and practice, it must be designed to accomplish this objective. It cannot simply be taken as a matter of faith that adhering to certain scientific research principles will lead to jointly useful research. Indeed, it may be that adhering to principles that were designed to produce research that contributes to scientific knowledge will make it certain that this research will not contribute to practice." [p 3] E.E. Lawler (1985), Challenging traditional research assumptions. In E.E. Lawler, A.M. Mohrman, S.A. Mohrman, E.E. Ledford and T.G. Cummings, Doing research that is useful for theory and practice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. "...scientific observation is theory-impregnated 1. in the choice of constructs, 2. in the way constructs are conceptually defined, 3. in the theoretical irrelevancies operational representations contain, 4. in the theory components particular operational instances fail to include, 5. in the weights implicitly assigned to factors in the multifactorial measures that social scientists invariably use." [p 219] T.D. Cook and W.R. Shadish (1986), Program evaluation: the worldly science. Annual Review of Psychology , 193-232. "External validity -- that is, the validity of inferences that go beyond the data -- is the crux. Increasing internal validity by elegant design often reduces relevance." [p 7] Lee J. Cronbach and associates (1980), Toward reform of program evaluation . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. "...science also has many limitations. Within science there are problems of methodology as we move from the restricted sciences (e.g. physics) to the unrestricted sciences (e.g. biology]. [...] Complexity, in general, and social phenomena, in particular both pose difficult problems for science; neither has it been able to tackle what we perceive as real world problems (as opposed to the scientist-defined problems of the laboratory). " [p 13] P. Checkland (1981), Systems thinking, systems practice . Chichester: Wiley. [ contents ]
Bob Dick (1993) You want to do an action research thesis? Available on line at http://www.aral.com.au/resources/arthesis.html
- DOI: 10.4135/9781452226644
- Corpus ID: 142757103
![](http://sektorel.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty
- Kathryn G. Herr , G. Anderson
- Published 2005
- Education, Sociology
521 Citations
Revisiting action research, the quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences, children as teacher-researcher's research partners - action research in the classroom, action research: an appropriat action research: an appropriate research methodology for improving healthcare practice, developing scholarly dispositions while becoming a participatory action researcher, the phd thesis as a threshold into action research: an invitation to educational action researchers to collaborate with supervisors and students in peripheral environments, 19 action research : a new look.
- Highly Influenced
Participatory Action Research and Information Literacy: Revising an Old New Hope for Research and Practice
Collaborative action research: the ethical challenges, integrating participatory action research into graduate geography studies: a tale of two dissertations, related papers.
Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers
![what is an action research thesis Research-Methodology](https://rm-15da4.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/imageedit_17_5934559984-1.png)
Action Research
Action research can be defined as “an approach in which the action researcher and a client collaborate in the diagnosis of the problem and in the development of a solution based on the diagnosis” [1] . In other words, one of the main characteristic traits of action research relates to collaboration between researcher and member of organisation in order to solve organizational problems.
Action study assumes social world to be constantly changing, both, researcher and research being one part of that change. [2] Generally, action researches can be divided into three categories: positivist, interpretive and critical.
Positivist approach to action research , also known as ‘classical action research’ perceives research as a social experiment. Accordingly, action research is accepted as a method to test hypotheses in a real world environment.
Interpretive action research , also known as ‘contemporary action research’ perceives business reality as socially constructed and focuses on specifications of local and organisational factors when conducting the action research.
Critical action research is a specific type of action research that adopts critical approach towards business processes and aims for improvements.
The following features of action research need to be taken into account when considering its suitability for any given study:
- It is applied in order to improve specific practices. Action research is based on action, evaluation and critical analysis of practices based on collected data in order to introduce improvements in relevant practices.
- This type of research is facilitated by participation and collaboration of number of individuals with a common purpose
- Such a research focuses on specific situations and their context
![Action Research Action Research](https://rm-15da4.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Action-Research-.bmp)
Advantages of Action Research
- High level of practical relevance of the business research;
- Can be used with quantitative, as well as, qualitative data;
- Possibility to gain in-depth knowledge about the problem.
Disadvantages of Action Research
- Difficulties in distinguishing between action and research and ensure the application of both;
- Delays in completion of action research due to a wide range of reasons are not rare occurrences
- Lack of repeatability and rigour
It is important to make a clear distinction between action research and consulting. Specifically, action research is greater than consulting in a way that action research includes both action and research, whereas business activities of consulting are limited action without the research.
Action Research Spiral
Action study is a participatory study consisting of spiral of following self-reflective cycles:
- Planning in order to initiate change
- Implementing the change (acting) and observing the process of implementation and consequences
- Reflecting on processes of change and re-planning
- Acting and observing
![Kemmis and McTaggart’s (2000) Action Research Spiral Kemmis and McTaggart’s (2000) Action Research Spiral](https://rm-15da4.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/New-Picture.png)
Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) do acknowledge that individual stages specified in Action Research Spiral model may overlap, and initial plan developed for the research may become obselete in short duration of time due to a range of factors.
The main advantage of Action Research Spiral model relates to the opportunity of analysing the phenomenon in a greater depth each time, consequently resulting in grater level of understanding of the problem.
Disadvantages of Action Research Spiral model include its assumption each process takes long time to be completed which may not always be the case.
My e-book, The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline.
![what is an action research thesis Action Research](https://rm-15da4.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Action-Research.jpg)
References
[1] Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2011) “Business Research Methods” 3 rd edition, Oxford University Press
[2] Collis, J. & Hussey, R. (2003) “Business Research. A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Graduate Students” 2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan
- Subject List
- Take a Tour
- For Authors
- Subscriber Services
- Publications
- African American Studies
- African Studies
- American Literature
- Anthropology
- Architecture Planning and Preservation
- Art History
- Atlantic History
- Biblical Studies
- British and Irish Literature
- Childhood Studies
- Chinese Studies
- Cinema and Media Studies
- Communication
- Criminology
- Environmental Science
- Evolutionary Biology
- International Law
- International Relations
- Islamic Studies
- Jewish Studies
- Latin American Studies
- Latino Studies
- Linguistics
- Literary and Critical Theory
- Medieval Studies
- Military History
- Political Science
- Public Health
- Renaissance and Reformation
- Social Work
- Urban Studies
- Victorian Literature
- Browse All Subjects
How to Subscribe
- Free Trials
In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Action Research
Introduction.
- General Overviews
- Reference Works
- Traditional Action Research
- Participatory Action Research
- Feminist Participatory Action Research
- Practitioner Centered Action Research
- Community-Based Participatory Research
- Action Science
- Power and Control
- Reflexivity
- Relationship with Practitioners
- Academic Rigor
- Ethical Research
- Challenges Gaining Approval from an IRB
- Training and Professional Development
- Dissemination
Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about
About related articles close popup.
Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet
Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.
- Ambulatory Assessment in Behavioral Science
- Personality Psychology
- Research Methods
- Research Methods for Studying Daily Life
- Single-Case Experimental Designs
Other Subject Areas
Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.
- Data Visualization
- Executive Functions in Childhood
- Remote Work
- Find more forthcoming articles...
- Export Citations
- Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
Action Research by Geoffrey Maruyama , Martin Van Boekel LAST REVIEWED: 30 January 2014 LAST MODIFIED: 30 January 2014 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0149
Unlike many areas of psychology, “action research” does not possess a single definition or evoke a single meaning for all researchers. Most action research links back to work initiated by a group of researchers led by Kurt Lewin (see Lewin 1946 and Lewin 1951 , both cited under Definition ). Lewin is widely viewed as the “father” of action research. Lewin is certainly deserving of that recognition, for conceptually driven research done by Lewin and colleagues before and during World War II addressed a range of practical issues while also helping to develop theories of attitude change. The work was guided by Lewin’s field theory. Part of what makes Lewin’s work so compelling and what has led to different variations of action research is his focus on action research as a philosophy about research as a vehicle for creating social advancement and change. He viewed action research as collaborative and engaging practitioners and policymakers in sustainable partnerships that address critical societal issues. At about the time that Lewin and his group were developing their perspective on action research, similar work was being conducted by Bion and colleagues in the British Isles (see Rapoport 1970 , cited under Definition ), again tied to World War II and issues like personnel selection and emotional impacts of war and incarceration. That work led to creation of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, which has sustained a focus on action research throughout the postwar era of experimental (social) psychology. This article’s focus, however, will stay largely with Lewin and the action research traditions his writings and work created. Those include many variations of action research, most notably participatory action research and community-based participatory research. Cassell and Johnson 2006 (cited under Definition ) describe different types of action research and the epistemologies and assumptions that underlie them, which helps explain how different traditions and approaches have developed.
Lewin 1946 described action research as “a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action, and research leading to social action” (p. 203), clearly engaged, change-oriented work. Lewin also went on to say, “Above all, it will have to include laboratory and field-experiments in social change” (p. 203). Post-positivist and constructivist researchers who draw their roots from Lewin should acknowledge his underlying positivist bent. They tend to focus more on his characterizing research objectives as being of two types: identifying general laws of behavior, and diagnosing specific situations. Much academic research has focused on identifying general laws and ignored the local conditions that shape outcomes, paying little attention to specific situations. In contrast, Lewin argued for the combining of “experts in theory,” researchers, with “experts in practice,” practitioners and others familiar with local conditions and how they can affect plans and theories, in order to understand the setting and to design studies likely to be effective. A fundamental part of action research that appeals to all variants of action research is building partnerships with practitioners, which Lewin 1946 described as “the delicate task of building productive, hard-hitting teams with practitioners . . .” (p. 211). These partnerships according to Lewin need to survive through several cycles of planning, action, and fact-finding. As action research has evolved and “split” into the streams mentioned in the initial section of this article, it has been interpreted in different ways, typically tied to how researchers interact with and share responsibility throughout the research process with practitioners ( Aguinis 1993 ).
Aguinis, H. 1993. Action research and scientific method: Presumed discrepancies and actual similarities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 29.4: 416–431.
DOI: 10.1177/0021886393294003
Suggests that action research is application of the scientific method and fact-finding to applied settings, done in collaboration with partners. Views action research and the traditional scientific approaches not as discrepant as often they are made out to be. Does a good job of presenting historical development of action research, including perspectives of others contrasting action research and traditional experimental research, as well as presenting his perspective.
Cassell, C., and P. Johnson. 2006. Action research: Explaining the diversity. Human Relations 54.6: 783–814.
DOI: 10.1177/0018726706067080
This article outlines five categories of action research. Each category is discussed in terms of the underlying philosophical assumptions and the research techniques utilized. Importantly, the authors discuss the difficulties in using one set of criteria to evaluate the success of an action research approach, proposing that due to the different philosophical assumptions different criteria must be used.
Lewin, K. 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2:34–46.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
This article includes Lewin’s original definition of action research listed above, as well as addressing the different research objectives, studying general laws and diagnosing specific situations. This article also appears as chapter 13 in K. Lewin, Resolving Social Conflicts (New York: Harper, 1948), pp. 201–216. Resolving Social Conflicts also was republished in 1997 (reprinted 2000) by the American Psychological Association in a single volume along with Field Theory in Social Science .
Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science: Collected theoretical papers . Edited by D. Cartwright. New York: Harper.
Papers in this volume rarely address action research directly, but lay the groundwork for it through field theory, which recognizes that behavior results from the interaction of individuals and environments, B = f(P, E). To explain and change behaviors, researchers need to develop and understand general laws and apply them to specific situations and individuals. The book is a compilation of his papers, with edits done by Dorwin (Doc) Cartwright after Lewin’s death.
Rapoport, R. N. 1970. Three dilemmas of action research. Human Relations 23:499–513.
Rapoport provides excellent historical background on the work of Bion and colleagues, which led to creation of the Tavistock Institute. Describes links between Lewin’s Group Dynamics center and Tavistock. Describes action research as a professional relationship and not service.
back to top
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .
Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .
- About Psychology »
- Meet the Editorial Board »
- Abnormal Psychology
- Academic Assessment
- Acculturation and Health
- Action Regulation Theory
- Action Research
- Addictive Behavior
- Adolescence
- Adoption, Social, Psychological, and Evolutionary Perspect...
- Advanced Theory of Mind
- Affective Forecasting
- Affirmative Action
- Ageism at Work
- Allport, Gordon
- Alzheimer’s Disease
- Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)
- Animal Behavior
- Animal Learning
- Anxiety Disorders
- Art and Aesthetics, Psychology of
- Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Psychology
- Assessment and Clinical Applications of Individual Differe...
- Attachment in Social and Emotional Development across the ...
- Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults
- Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Childre...
- Attitudinal Ambivalence
- Attraction in Close Relationships
- Attribution Theory
- Authoritarian Personality
- Bayesian Statistical Methods in Psychology
- Behavior Therapy, Rational Emotive
- Behavioral Economics
- Behavioral Genetics
- Belief Perseverance
- Bereavement and Grief
- Biological Psychology
- Birth Order
- Body Image in Men and Women
- Bystander Effect
- Categorical Data Analysis in Psychology
- Childhood and Adolescence, Peer Victimization and Bullying...
- Clark, Mamie Phipps
- Clinical Neuropsychology
- Clinical Psychology
- Cognitive Consistency Theories
- Cognitive Dissonance Theory
- Cognitive Neuroscience
- Communication, Nonverbal Cues and
- Comparative Psychology
- Competence to Stand Trial: Restoration Services
- Competency to Stand Trial
- Computational Psychology
- Conflict Management in the Workplace
- Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
- Consciousness
- Coping Processes
- Correspondence Analysis in Psychology
- Counseling Psychology
- Creativity at Work
- Critical Thinking
- Cross-Cultural Psychology
- Cultural Psychology
- Daily Life, Research Methods for Studying
- Data Science Methods for Psychology
- Data Sharing in Psychology
- Death and Dying
- Deceiving and Detecting Deceit
- Defensive Processes
- Depressive Disorders
- Development, Prenatal
- Developmental Psychology (Cognitive)
- Developmental Psychology (Social)
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM...
- Discrimination
- Dissociative Disorders
- Drugs and Behavior
- Eating Disorders
- Ecological Psychology
- Educational Settings, Assessment of Thinking in
- Effect Size
- Embodiment and Embodied Cognition
- Emerging Adulthood
- Emotional Intelligence
- Empathy and Altruism
- Employee Stress and Well-Being
- Environmental Neuroscience and Environmental Psychology
- Ethics in Psychological Practice
- Event Perception
- Evolutionary Psychology
- Expansive Posture
- Experimental Existential Psychology
- Exploratory Data Analysis
- Eyewitness Testimony
- Eysenck, Hans
- Factor Analysis
- Festinger, Leon
- Five-Factor Model of Personality
- Flynn Effect, The
- Forensic Psychology
- Forgiveness
- Friendships, Children's
- Fundamental Attribution Error/Correspondence Bias
- Gambler's Fallacy
- Game Theory and Psychology
- Geropsychology, Clinical
- Global Mental Health
- Habit Formation and Behavior Change
- Health Psychology
- Health Psychology Research and Practice, Measurement in
- Heider, Fritz
- Heuristics and Biases
- History of Psychology
- Human Factors
- Humanistic Psychology
- Implicit Association Test (IAT)
- Industrial and Organizational Psychology
- Inferential Statistics in Psychology
- Insanity Defense, The
- Intelligence
- Intelligence, Crystallized and Fluid
- Intercultural Psychology
- Intergroup Conflict
- International Classification of Diseases and Related Healt...
- International Psychology
- Interviewing in Forensic Settings
- Intimate Partner Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
- Introversion–Extraversion
- Item Response Theory
- Law, Psychology and
- Lazarus, Richard
- Learned Helplessness
- Learning Theory
- Learning versus Performance
- LGBTQ+ Romantic Relationships
- Lie Detection in a Forensic Context
- Life-Span Development
- Locus of Control
- Loneliness and Health
- Mathematical Psychology
- Meaning in Life
- Mechanisms and Processes of Peer Contagion
- Media Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
- Mediation Analysis
- Memories, Autobiographical
- Memories, Flashbulb
- Memories, Repressed and Recovered
- Memory, False
- Memory, Human
- Memory, Implicit versus Explicit
- Memory in Educational Settings
- Memory, Semantic
- Meta-Analysis
- Metacognition
- Metaphor, Psychological Perspectives on
- Microaggressions
- Military Psychology
- Mindfulness
- Mindfulness and Education
- Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
- Money, Psychology of
- Moral Conviction
- Moral Development
- Moral Psychology
- Moral Reasoning
- Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology
- Neuroscience of Associative Learning
- Nonergodicity in Psychology and Neuroscience
- Nonparametric Statistical Analysis in Psychology
- Observational (Non-Randomized) Studies
- Obsessive-Complusive Disorder (OCD)
- Occupational Health Psychology
- Olfaction, Human
- Operant Conditioning
- Optimism and Pessimism
- Organizational Justice
- Parenting Stress
- Parenting Styles
- Parents' Beliefs about Children
- Path Models
- Peace Psychology
- Perception, Person
- Performance Appraisal
- Personality and Health
- Personality Disorders
- Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies: From Car...
- Phenomenological Psychology
- Placebo Effects in Psychology
- Play Behavior
- Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
- Positive Psychology
- Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
- Prejudice and Stereotyping
- Pretrial Publicity
- Prisoner's Dilemma
- Problem Solving and Decision Making
- Procrastination
- Prosocial Behavior
- Prosocial Spending and Well-Being
- Protocol Analysis
- Psycholinguistics
- Psychological Literacy
- Psychological Perspectives on Food and Eating
- Psychology, Political
- Psychoneuroimmunology
- Psychophysics, Visual
- Psychotherapy
- Psychotic Disorders
- Publication Bias in Psychology
- Reasoning, Counterfactual
- Rehabilitation Psychology
- Relationships
- Reliability–Contemporary Psychometric Conceptions
- Religion, Psychology and
- Replication Initiatives in Psychology
- Risk Taking
- Role of the Expert Witness in Forensic Psychology, The
- Sample Size Planning for Statistical Power and Accurate Es...
- Schizophrenic Disorders
- School Psychology
- School Psychology, Counseling Services in
- Self, Gender and
- Self, Psychology of the
- Self-Construal
- Self-Control
- Self-Deception
- Self-Determination Theory
- Self-Efficacy
- Self-Esteem
- Self-Monitoring
- Self-Regulation in Educational Settings
- Self-Report Tests, Measures, and Inventories in Clinical P...
- Sensation Seeking
- Sex and Gender
- Sexual Minority Parenting
- Sexual Orientation
- Signal Detection Theory and its Applications
- Simpson's Paradox in Psychology
- Single People
- Skinner, B.F.
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Small Groups
- Social Class and Social Status
- Social Cognition
- Social Neuroscience
- Social Support
- Social Touch and Massage Therapy Research
- Somatoform Disorders
- Spatial Attention
- Sports Psychology
- Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy
- Stereotype Threat
- Stereotypes
- Stress and Coping, Psychology of
- Student Success in College
- Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis
- Taste, Psychological Perspectives on
- Teaching of Psychology
- Terror Management Theory
- Testing and Assessment
- The Concept of Validity in Psychological Assessment
- The Neuroscience of Emotion Regulation
- The Reasoned Action Approach and the Theories of Reasoned ...
- The Weapon Focus Effect in Eyewitness Memory
- Theory of Mind
- Therapy, Cognitive-Behavioral
- Thinking Skills in Educational Settings
- Time Perception
- Trait Perspective
- Trauma Psychology
- Twin Studies
- Type A Behavior Pattern (Coronary Prone Personality)
- Unconscious Processes
- Video Games and Violent Content
- Virtues and Character Strengths
- Women and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM...
- Women, Psychology of
- Work Well-Being
- Workforce Training Evaluation
- Wundt, Wilhelm
- Privacy Policy
- Cookie Policy
- Legal Notice
- Accessibility
Powered by:
- [81.177.180.204]
- 81.177.180.204
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.
- Knowledge Base
- Methodology
- What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples
What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples
Published on 27 January 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on 21 April 2023.
![what is an action research thesis Action research Cycle](https://www.scribbr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/action-research-cycle-preview.webp)
Table of contents
Types of action research, action research models, examples of action research, action research vs. traditional research, advantages and disadvantages of action research, frequently asked questions about action research.
There are 2 common types of action research: participatory action research and practical action research.
- Participatory action research emphasises that participants should be members of the community being studied, empowering those directly affected by outcomes of said research. In this method, participants are effectively co-researchers, with their lived experiences considered formative to the research process.
- Practical action research focuses more on how research is conducted and is designed to address and solve specific issues.
Both types of action research are more focused on increasing the capacity and ability of future practitioners than contributing to a theoretical body of knowledge.
Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.
Action research is often reflected in 3 action research models: operational (sometimes called technical), collaboration, and critical reflection.
- Operational (or technical) action research is usually visualised like a spiral following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”
- Collaboration action research is more community-based, focused on building a network of similar individuals (e.g., college professors in a given geographic area) and compiling learnings from iterated feedback cycles.
- Critical reflection action research serves to contextualise systemic processes that are already ongoing (e.g., working retroactively to analyse existing school systems by questioning why certain practices were put into place and developed the way they did).
Action research is often used in fields like education because of its iterative and flexible style.
After the information was collected, the students were asked where they thought ramps or other accessibility measures would be best utilised, and the suggestions were sent to school administrators. Example: Practical action research Science teachers at your city’s high school have been witnessing a year-over-year decline in standardised test scores in chemistry. In seeking the source of this issue, they studied how concepts are taught in depth, focusing on the methods, tools, and approaches used by each teacher.
Action research differs sharply from other types of research in that it seeks to produce actionable processes over the course of the research rather than contributing to existing knowledge or drawing conclusions from datasets. In this way, action research is formative , not summative , and is conducted in an ongoing, iterative way.
Action research | Traditional research | |
---|---|---|
and findings | ||
and seeking between variables | ||
As such, action research is different in purpose, context, and significance and is a good fit for those seeking to implement systemic change.
Action research comes with advantages and disadvantages.
- Action research is highly adaptable , allowing researchers to mould their analysis to their individual needs and implement practical individual-level changes.
- Action research provides an immediate and actionable path forward for solving entrenched issues, rather than suggesting complicated, longer-term solutions rooted in complex data.
- Done correctly, action research can be very empowering , informing social change and allowing participants to effect that change in ways meaningful to their communities.
Disadvantages
- Due to their flexibility, action research studies are plagued by very limited generalisability and are very difficult to replicate . They are often not considered theoretically rigorous due to the power the researcher holds in drawing conclusions.
- Action research can be complicated to structure in an ethical manner . Participants may feel pressured to participate or to participate in a certain way.
- Action research is at high risk for research biases such as selection bias , social desirability bias , or other types of cognitive biases .
Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.
Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.
Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.
A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”
Sources for this article
We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.
George, T. (2023, April 21). What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 2 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/action-research-cycle/
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th edition). Routledge.
Naughton, G. M. (2001). Action research (1st edition). Routledge.
Is this article helpful?
Tegan George
Other students also liked, primary research | definition, types, & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, what is an observational study | guide & examples.
![what is an action research thesis what is an action research thesis](https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/sites/default/files/2020-01/FW%20-%20Wooden%20directional%20signpost%20poiting%20towards%20viewer%20with%20rollling%20countryside%20in%20background_0.jpg)
How to... Carry out action research
Action research is a research strategy which combines research with action and participation in the field. As a method, it goes back to the period immediately post the Second World War (see "The history of action research", below) and has become increasingly popular over the last few years, along with other qualitative methods, as people come to see the value in collecting rich data by disparate means. It is a form of applied research, and is particularly useful in developing theory about practice.
On this page
What is action research, research design and data collection, exposing action research, action research resources.
"Action research can be described as a family of research methodologies which pursue action (or change) and research (or understanding) at the same time. In most of its forms it does this by:
- using a cyclic or spiral process which alternates between action and critical reflection, and
- in the later cycles, continuously refining methods, data and interpretation in the light of the understanding developed in the earlier cycles.
It is thus an emergent process which takes shape as understanding increases; it is an iterative process which converges towards a better understanding of what happens.
In most of its forms it is also participative (among other reasons, change is usually easier to achieve when those affected by the change are involved) and qualitative."
From Dick, B. (1999), "What is action research?". Available online at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/whatisar.htm
The normal position of the researcher is detached, scientific, standing outside events and diligently recording them. A number of methods may be used – questionnaire, focus group, interviews, observation, etc. – but it is generally the researcher who controls data gathering for purposes that affect their research rather than the participants' agenda. In other words, the subjects are passive in research terms: they may either be unaware of being "watched" or unconcerned about the data used from their interview or survey.
In action research, however, people are not just subjects but partners in the research process. The research arises not out of a question from an external individual, but as a shared process of reflection between the researcher and the participants; the latter help gather data in relation to their own questions; research results are fed back to them directly to improve the situation that was the subject of the research.
The learning so acquired goes not only to answer a research question, but also to solve an organisational problem, or at least to take forward and deepen the organisation's understanding of itself.
However much confined to the organisation are the interests of the participants, the researcher will have broader concerns. He or she is seeking and creating knowledge which relates not just to the project itself, but which can be applied to other projects, in other contexts, and which can add to practice and theory itself. Good action research, like any good research, seeks a broad influence.
The context of action research is almost always the organisation: most action research studies are case studies. They are very often linked with a change agenda, via the creation of deeper knowledge and understanding about a particular social or organisational issue, in order to improve a particular situation.
Below are two examples of research projects that deliberately set out to change rather than just observe:
- In " Operationalizing the concept of value – an action research-based model " Naslund et al. (2006) looked at the concept of value within an organisation, principally at a global corporation which leads in the packaging supply field. The data were collected in the organisation by means of document studies, informal surveys, observations and interviews. The object was to help people in the organisation look at their ways of working and overcome any resistance to better ways of doing things.
- In " Performance measurement action research " Moss et al . (2007) describe how the Centre for Facilities Management worked with a provider of estates and facilities management to a major UK government department. It used action research to create an improved performance measurement system for the organisation.
In "conventional" research, the researcher either takes a snapshot of what is going on in an organisation at a particular time, or does a longitudinal study. In action research the participant as well as the researcher reflects on actions, while the researcher is equally concerned to see organisational change as to have research hypotheses substantiated.
In " The impact of e-resources at Bournemouth University 2004/2006 " Beard et al. provide the following definition of action research:
"Action research … seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people (Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2001), Handbook of Action Research , Sage, London, p. 1)."
In " The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences " Zuber-Skerrit and Fletcher (2007) quote the following definition of action research which was first given at a 1989 symposium in Brisbane:
"If yours is a situation in which:
- people reflect and improve (or develop) their own work and their own situations;
- by tightly interlinking their reflection and action; and
- also making their experience public not only to other participants but also to other persons interested in and concerned about the work and the situation, i.e. their public theories and practices of the work and the situation;
and if yours is a situation in which there is increasingly:
- data gathering by participants themselves (or with the help of others) in relation to their own questions;
- participation (in problem posing and in answering questions) in decision making;
- power sharing and the relative suspension of hierarchical ways of working, in a conscious move towards social and industrial democracy;
- collaboration among members of the group as a 'critical community';
- self-reflection, self-evaluation and self-management by autonomous and responsible persons and groups;
- progressive (and public) learning by doing and making mistakes in a 'self-reflective spiral' of planning, acting, observing, reflective planning, etc.; and
- reflection that supports the idea of the '(self-)reflective practitioner';
then yours is a situation in which action research is occurring."
The history of action research
The concept of action research goes back to the German psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947). As a Jew and a leftist, Lewin was forced in the 1930s to flee Hitler's Germany for the USA, where he did much to develop our contemporary ideas of change. He was particularly (and understandably) concerned with social justice and racial discrimination, seeing the latter as linked with problems of management and gatekeepers who determined what was and wasn't done. He believed that efforts for change should be focused on the group, which should challenge group norms and processes.
The concept of action research grew out of Lewin's strong social convictions – research would be linked with action to create a change process over organisational issues directly experienced by practitioners. Good research, Lewin claimed, should produce real change and not just end up in books (he was writing in an era well before the dominance of the top US journals with their "scientific" approach or the UK Research Assessment Exercise).
A particularly good account of Lewin's contribution to action research theory is given in Adams and McNicholas (2007).
In order to produce this change, the researcher needed to witness events at first hand as a partner in the process, to become truly involved in the system. His or her role is not only to document, but also to facilitate the process of reflection and enquiry.
A group of university researchers worked in partnership with the local high schools to help the latter determine what were the factors that led to pupils staying longer in school. They used a method of "appreciative inquiry", which is looking for the best and building on it. The positive environment thus created encourages and stimulates learning (Calabrese, 2006).
Action research has also been taken up in Latin America, by Paolo Friere and Orlando Fals Borda, and is currently a popular research methodology all over the world with a burgeoning literature, especially over the last two decades.
Applications of action research
According to Gapp and Fisher (2006) action research presents:
"a very effective alternative to social science research methods in that it is: practical, participative and collaborative, emancipatory, interpretive and critical. The process of action research is very effective in identifying creative solutions".
As described above, and because of its participatory and organisational nature, action research is much identified with change, whether as an actual change initiative, observation of change process or seeking to manage change in an organisation. Part of its strength here lies in its ability to take interaction with participants further than with normal research, yielding deeper understanding of individuals and drawing down more illuminating data. Equally it helps participants themselves to gain deeper understanding by reflecting on their experience.
Action research can also be strongly linked with action learning – learning from experience, particularly in an organisational context. As the researchers participate in the organisation, they create an impetus for learning as members of the organisation reflect on their experiences.
In Scandinavia, the "dialogue conference" has been in use for 30 years, and involves creating a public forum for participation and dialogue organised according to principles of respect and democracy. " Developmental magic? Two takes on a dialogue conference " (Philips and Huzzard, 2007) explores the use of this technique in action research to facilitate change within health organisations, taking on themes of visions, challenges, ideas and plans for future work.
Action research was used as a tool to try and understand the management of change in an organisation, the organisation being a university and the change being the wide scale adoption of electronic resources, as described by Beard et al. (2007).
Action research is common in research which looks at social issues, such as ethnicity, equality and the environment. Another application is in educational research, its popularity here being no doubt due to the obvious need to improve practice.
An EC funded project wanted to examine the question, would new migrants be more likely to work for the NHS if they had a better command of English and related material? This was researched through a number of focus groups comprising health service workers and non-working minority groups. Material was also created and trialled with a number of groups of learners.
Finally, there is an obvious attraction for action research for part-time management students looking for a way of integrating their studies with their work, many of whom use their project as a way of solving a workplace issue and carrying out some consultancy.
Adams, C.A and McNicholas, P. (2007) " Making a difference. Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change ", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal , Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 382-402.
Beard, J., Dale, P. and Hutchins, J. (2007), " The impact of e-resources at Bournemouth University 2004/2006 ", Performance Measurement and Metrics , Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 7-17.
Calabrese, R.L. (2006), " Building social capital through the use of an appreciative inquiry theoretical perspective in a school and university partnership ", International Journal of Education Management , Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 173-182.
Gapp, R. and Fisher, R. (2006), " Achieving excellence through innovative approaches to student involvement in course evaluation within the tertiary education sector ", Quality Assurance in Education , Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 156-166.
Moss, Q.Z., Alho, J. and Alexander, K. (2007), " Performance measurement action research ", Journal of Facilities Management , Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 290-300.
Naslund, D. , Olsson, A. and Karlsson, S. (2006), " Operationalizing the concept of value – an action research-based model ", The Learning Organization , Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 300-332.
Philips, M.E. and Huzzard, T. (2007), " Developmental magic? Two takes on a dialogue conference ", Journal of Organizational Change Management , Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 8-25.
Zuber-Skerrit, O. and Fletcher, M. (2007), " The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences ", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 413-436.
Like any research approach, action research has its own development cycle, its links with theory, what may rather grandly be termed its epistemological stance (i.e. whether it aims to build on or build theory) and its preferred data collection methods. This is all part of research design, and this section will look at how to design an action research project in a thorough and effective way.
Link with participants
As we saw in the previous section, what really distinguishes action research from other forms of research is that the participants have a much more direct role. This will influence the design from start to finish. For example participants will:
- need to be involved in the planning process, in order to ensure that the research asks questions that are relevant to their concern,
- possibly have a hand in data gathering, and definitely an interest in the results,
- look for practice related, as opposed to research, outcomes, and a change in their own practice.
Action research has been compared with consulting in that it is concerned with development of practice; the difference is that it is cyclical rather than linear, the cyclical element being concerned with reflection, designed not only to improve practice but also to generate theory. The time-scale is often longer, and the budget larger.
The theoretical connection
For all that action research is concerned with improvements to practice, the theoretical angle is also important as all research seeks to build theory.
Action research is generally inductive rather than deductive – that is, the data collection builds rather than tests theory. The researcher may start with a particular theoretical position, but should be open to what the research yields, and to open reflection.
This openness, however, does not negate the importance of immersing oneself in the relevant literature, both content and methodology, in order to give a context to the problem.
The unique nature of action research interventions, and their non repeatability, means that they are not good for rigorous theory testing. On the other hand, they are good at testing theoretical frameworks, or theories as related to other theories. Hence their usefulness in organisation studies, where such frameworks apply.
The important thing is for the particular research to have results which extend beyond the confines of the particular project and have a general application, whether as a test of theoretical frameworks as described above, as theory which informs more robust practice, or a tool, model, or method which can be used in a range of situations.
In " Making a difference. Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change " Adams and McNicholas (2007) conclude their study of sustainability reporting thus:
"Our study has shown that, through action research, academics can assist organisations in bringing about improvements to their sustainability reporting processes, accountability and sustainability performance. Action research might also contribute to academic literature and theorising by improving our understanding of: what drives organisations to provide an account of their sustainability performance; what determines the level of accountability attained; the complex nature of the interactions and relationships between organisations and their stakeholders on sustainability issues; and the manner in which sustainability reporting processes impact on organisational change towards improved sustainability performance."
In " Action research as culture change tool " Marcinkoniene and Kekäle describe a programme of change in post-communist Baltic schools. They use the literature to describe the prevalent culture, and conclude that it would be possible to apply a similar action research intervention in other post-communist states, where schools are likely to have a similar culture.
Action research takes the researcher and the organisation through a cyclical process of deepening understanding, both of the organisational problem and the research question, in which reflection happens not just at the beginning and the end, but throughout the process. This reflection yields a greater sense of empowerment for participants, who feel themselves more in charge of decision-making processes and more able to see problems clearly.
The iterative nature of the reflection process makes action research similar to grounded theory, which involves going back into the field after looking at data with a clearer understanding of the key issues, and developing further understanding through more research.
In " The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences " Zuber-Skerrit quotes her own theoretical framework of action research – the CRASP model. Action research is:
- C ritical (and self-critical) collaborative enquiry by
- R eflective practitioners being
- A ccountable and making the results of their enquiry public,
- S elf-evaluating their practice and engaged in
- P articipative problem-solving and continuing professional development.
Collecting data – multiple sources of evidence
The great advantage of the case study (and most action research, as we have seen, takes place in a case study environment) is that it can yield data from many different sources. Many action research studies use a combination of artefacts, document studies, surveys, interviews, focus groups, discussions, participant observation, group work, performance measurement. In addition, hard data may be available as in the following example.
Adams and McNicholas (2007) report on the data collection methods, which supplemented discussion, observations in meetings and interviews, with hard data such as operational statistics, financial accounts, marketing reports, sustainability reports, as well as detailed study of the website, annual reports etc.
The most striking thing about action research, however, is that much of the data is supplied by the individuals themselves as part of feedback on how the object of data collection helps them in their work and lives.
In " Prioritizing tactical quality improvement: An action research study " Hales et al. (2006) describe the testing of a method for improving decision making at the shop-floor level. The method was tried out on the shop-floor with interviews being conducted with users and observation of people using it.
Andersen et al . (2006) describe how the researchers were involved in bringing about changes in a bank, and deployed a number of methods to identify shortcomings and suggest improvements, including:
- interviews with all employees in the bank;
- observation of employees' interaction with customers in customer meetings and other situations;
- interviews with customers, both those observed in interactions with service personnel and those who had not been in contact with the bank in a while;
- performance measurement of some key factors, e.g. customer flow in the bank office;
- group work among the bank employees to analyse problem areas and develop improvements; and
- the use of tools like business process analysis, root cause analysis, and similar techniques to shed light on problem areas.
Beard et al. (2007) used action research because it was participatory, encouraging researchers to seek views which they did through online questionnaires and subsequent interviews with a number of participants, and which they triangulated with data on online use.
Gapp and Fisher (2006) describe how the traditional course evaluation questionnaires were supplemented by focus groups as an additional way of finding out how to improve the course.
Andersen, B., Henriksen, B. and Aarseth, W. (2006), " Holistic performance management: an integrated framework ", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 61-78.
Hales, D.N., Siha, S.M. and McKnew, J.I. (2006), " Prioritizing tactical quality improvement: An action research study ", International Journal of Operations and Production Management , Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 866-881.
Marcinkoniene, R. and Kekäle, T. (2007), " Action research as culture change tool ", Baltic Journal of Management , Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 97-109.
The advantages of action research will have become clear. It allows the researcher to work on a problem, not only yielding answers to the problem but also informing theory. It empowers participants, enables change, and creates opportunities for organisational learning. It yields rich data from multiple sources. It creates solid theory about practice, and hence leads to improvements.
Despite these benefits, action research is not without its limitations and critics. The latter point to the lack of validity and generalisability, on the ground that the intervention is a one off and not repeatable. Perhaps more seriously, however, is the fact that it is not perceived as mainstream, and will therefore not be welcomed by the gatekeepers of the all important mainstream international journals.
Despite these benefits, action research is not without its limitations and critics. The latter point to the lack of validity and generalisability, on the ground that the intervention is a one off and not repeatable. Perhaps more seriously, however, is the fact that it is not perceived as mainstream, and will therefore not be welcomed by the gate keepers of the all important mainstream international journals.
How to improve the validity of action research
Validity can be ensured by applying rigour in the research methodology and design. In particular:
- Using the relevant literature, both method and content, to situate the problem, and then to reflect on findings.
- Using measures and methods that are well respected in the literature.
- Using standard tools to increase reliability – for example a written protocol for interviews.
- Writing up the research in a well argued and well documented manner.
The case study approach, and focus on the particular (organisation, problem, etc.) encourages multiple sources of data. This in itself increases validity, as evidence is coming from a range of sources, and allows for triangulation – checking of one source against another.
At the end of their article, " The impact of e-resources at Bournemouth University 2004/2006 ", Beard et al. comment:
"Action research has proved to be an appropriate methodology for this type of research, as it allows quantitative and qualitative data to be used and learning to occur through action and reflection. Triangulation enables the views of a diverse community of academics and students to be considered alongside data from management information systems".
Triangulation in action research, however, is not merely a matter of being able to check one set of results against another; it is also possible to check differences in data from observation, personal accounts, etc. over the passage of time. However, the researcher here is looking for difference, not similarity, and for the opportunity to reflect on the different perspectives the former reveals.
Validity is also increased by having several researchers on the project, which gives greater objectivity. Hales et al. (2006) describe how they tested a method one of them had developed for improving tactical decision making. They used multiple sources of evidence – including open-ended interviews with senior managers, supervisors and workers, and observation – as a way of validating data, and four researchers to increase objectivity. The first author developed the method, the second and fourth authors conducted the interviews, which were analysed by the third, who also reviewed research logs. Three of the authors carried on participant observation.
Dissemination
Dissemination is obviously an excellent way of generalising research. According to Eden and Huxham (2002), action research calls for book length, owing to the incremental nature of theory development, the need to provide background and the complexity of the data itself. Doherty and Manfredi (2006) believe that despite the growing popularity of action research, it is disdained by "mainstream" management journals which favour more traditional methodologies.
Failure to benefit from the top publication outlets (i.e. top American journals) hits both UK and US based scholars. The former are in hock to the Research Assessment Exercise, which provides top ratings for international (and mostly American) journals which promote a conventional, positivist, research ethos, and in any case treats with suspicion any research that is not mainstream. The latter can only receive tenure if they publish in the aforementioned top journals. For a young scholar, doing action research can be just too much of a risk.
That notwithstanding, much action research does get published in journals – for example, a fulltext search for the phrase "action research" in Emerald's database yielded over 1,300 entries (search as of January 2008).
Students using action research as a method for a doctoral thesis may also experience problems, taking longer to complete, and having difficulty finding a supervisor who understands (Zuber-Skerrit and Fletcher, 2007). According to the latter, a good action research thesis should solve a real and complex problem, benefit from top level commitment in the organisation the student is researching in, and the reflection should be to find out what is the gap in knowledge that will earn the doctorate.
There is quite a bit of advice on writing an action research thesis, as will be explained in Section 4 "Action research resources".
Zuber-Skerrit and Fletcher (2007) advise that a quality action research thesis is one which:
- solves a real, complex problem – it is necessary to get the cooperation of top level management,
- contributes to both practical and theoretical knowledge –- above all, identifying a gap.
This quality is achieved by:
- a carefully designed, explained and justified methodology,
- an original contribution which provides relevant support and validation and which is well argued,
- the use of relevant literature, both methodological and content, aligned to the topic,
- a clear, concise and accurate piece of writing, free from errors.
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (2002), "Action research" in Partington, D (Ed.), Essential Skills for Management Research , Sage Publications, London.
Doherty, L. and Manfredi, S. (2006), ' Action research to develop work-life balance in a UK university ', Women in Management Review , Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 241-259.
There are a number of web resources on action research. Undoubtedly the best is that from Southern Cross University.
A substantial collection of action research resources presented by Bob Dick of Southern Cross University. It contains AREOL, an online course in action research, many useful papers on topics such as evaluation, using particular techniques and processes etc. There is also a section on writing an action research thesis, as well as abstracts of completed AR theses.
Has a lot of useful publications, including doctoral and masters' theses, as well as some useful papers including an introductory chapter from the Handbook of Action Research .
This site rates low on usability and is a hotchpotch of assorted items, but it does provide links to theses as well as a paper aimed at new action researchers: http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html .
A professional network of action researchers, based at Manchester Metropolitan University, with publications and a discussion list.
A series of links which relates to action research in an educational context.
Southern Cross University – Bob Dick
Centre for action research in professional practice (university of bath), jack whitehead's pages at the university of bath – actionresearch.net, the collaborative action research network, action research at queen's university.
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
![what is an action research thesis paper cover thumbnail](https://0.academia-photos.com/attachment_thumbnails/37677815/mini_magick20180815-12920-1xxx7p6.png?1534397569)
ACTION RESEARCH AS MASTER'S THESIS
![what is an action research thesis Profile image of Andrew Johnson](https://0.academia-photos.com/15900569/4301231/36129999/s65_andrew.johnson.jpg)
This chapter excerpt describes how to use action research for a Master's Thesis. Included are a proposal form and what should be included in each chapter of a thesis.
Related Papers
![what is an action research thesis what is an action research thesis](https://a.academia-assets.com/images/loswp/related-pdf-icon.png)
Michał Zawadzki
Performing educational research: Theories, methods …
Julie Davis
Andrew Johnson
Action research is a type of research related to one’s professional practice. In the field of education, it can be defined as the process of studying a school, classroom, or teaching-learning situation with the purpose of understanding and improving the quality of actions or instruction. In this sense, it is the ultimate form of teacher reflection. Described in this chapter expert are the basic elements and the steps of action research.
JALT Applied Materials Series
Gregory Hadley
The purpose of this article is to answer the following questions: What is action research? What obstacles must one overcome before doing an action research project? How can a new or inexperienced teacher begin an action research project? Why should classroom practitioners do action research? After reading this article, language teachers will be prepared to start their own action research project.
International Research Journal of MMC
Dr. Lok R A J Sharma
Action research, which is a dynamic iterative process, is a deliberate and solution-oriented investigation accomplished collectively or personally in order to solve an existing problem. It entails the participants who scrutinize their own instructive practice systematically and cautiously. It is characterized by spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis, actions taken based on data, and finally problem redefinition. It is an applied form of inquiry useful in divergent situations. It involves such people who keep working to improve their performances, skills, strategies and techniques. The prime objective of this article is to deal with the crucial aspects of action research, such as definitions of action research, field of action research, process, steps, principals, characteristics, benefits and demerits of action research. This article has been prepared on the basis of secondary data gathered from research books and journal articl...
Gregory Hadley , David Jeffrey
Action Research in Action is about classroom-oriented research conducted by classroom teachers. The eight action research reports in this booklet reflect the principles, methodology and philosophy for doing action research. The booklet is a valuable resource for teachers, teacher trainers and other language professionals who wish to develop a better understanding of how classroom-based research can be successfully implemented in the classroom.
Hilary Bradbury-Huang
Restu Fitrian Aristama
Rhett Diessner
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
RELATED PAPERS
Educational Action Research
Carl James-Reynolds
Quality Assurance in Education
Margaret Fletcher
DR. JASHIM UDDIN AHMED
Building Action Research in Higher Education
Marcus Seels
Social Research Update
Colin Todhunter
Stephen Kemmis
The PAC Journal
Robert Dickey
Kristy's Salas
International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology
Victoria J Marsick
Amy Pfeiler-Wunder
Sandy Whitelaw
LORNA ADUANA
School Science and Mathematics
Margaret Niess
Victoria J Palmer
Systemic Practice and Action Research
John Barton
Cape Town: Juta
Chris Winberg , Caroline Kerfoot
Action Research
Margie Comrie
Ercan Tomakin
Erin Graybill Ellis , Jessica Gullion
Oxford Review of Education
Martyn Hammersley
RELATED TOPICS
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
- Find new research papers in:
- Health Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Mathematics
- Computer Science
- Academia ©2024
- How it works
![what is an action research thesis researchprospect post subheader](https://www.researchprospect.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/3-3.webp)
Action Research for my Dissertation – The Do’s and the Don’ts
Published by Alvin Nicolas at August 14th, 2021 , Revised On August 29, 2023
Introduction
Action research is performed to identify solutions for a problem , or it can be a progressive problem-solving process with a focus on reflection.
Action research can also be a part of a community of practice designed to identify issues and develop proactive solutions. Action research aims to develop appropriate guidelines that can be considered to be best practices in any discipline.
The researcher pursues an active strategy of participating in the change situation while conducting research. Action is important for the research enterprise, which differentiates action research from traditional research that takes a distant research setting approach.
Action researchers strive to study the current actions that play a critical role in any setting. This article will help introduce action research for a dissertation – the do’s and don’ts to research students so they can kickstart their action research promptly.
Struggling to get going with your dissertation? Here is an article on “ How to write a dissertation – Step by step guide .”
Definition of Action Research
Action research is a disciplined process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking action. The primary reason for engaging in action research is to assist the “actor” in improving and/or refining their actions.
Students who are required to perform action research find the process of action research extremely powerful. One of the foremost benefits of action research is that it is always relevant to the participants.
The principal consumers of any action research project’s findings are the researchers themselves, so relevance is guaranteed every time.
The Process of Action Research
Action research in education can be performed by the entire school faculty, a group of participants who share common interests, or an individual. Regardless of who participates in educational action research, the process of action research includes the following seven stages;
- Selecting a focus
- Clarifying theories
- Recognising research questions
- Data collection
- Data analysis
- Presenting Results
- Taking informed action
Advantages and Disadvantages
It is important to understand how to perform action research in education settings to establish its advantages and disadvantages. One of the key advantages of action research is that it helps researchers increase their knowledge through experience.
The action research cycle can be a learning cycle focusing on systematic reflection to have an effective ability to learn. Action research is participative in nature and helps to understand researchers and the participants of any study.
Students can find it worthwhile to mention a dissertation in their resume that directly relates to this practice. There are some disadvantages to this type of research, such as the fact that a conventional format cannot write the dissertation .
Students will have to learn to employ the action research methodology to complete their dissertation papers. Another disadvantage is that the library work for action research is demanding as the data and its interpretation define the literature.
Why not take advantage of the ResearchProspect.com dissertation writing service? Your dissertation is the most important part of your degree, and for that reason, you cannot risk failing it.
Are you looking for a professional dissertation writing service?
We hear you.
- Whether you want a full dissertation written or need help forming a dissertation proposal, we can help you with both.
- Get different dissertation services at ResearchProspect and score amazing grades!
The Do’s and Don’ts
Make yourself familiar with the complexities and requirements of action research before conducting the study. This will help you in preparing the introduction to the dissertation .
The first step is to write a winning proposal to establish your research problem and decide on the research’s approach and direction .
Action research problems play a critical role in driving the research to a level equal to or greater than existing literature. A good action research dissertation is data-driven rather than being theory-driven.
Selecting the action research questions is critical from the perspective of the researcher. These questions are important in research as they identify the implications of such questions in the real world.
Action research questions could emerge by researching a setting where students have relationships when they ask what research questions should be explored to address and identify the social, political, and ethical dilemmas.
Similarly, students can conduct action research in external settings by identifying problems and developing relationships to undertake a comprehensive study. It is important to have an idea of primary research and secondary research when writing an action-based dissertation.
The research methodology for action research is not specific as the methods are context-bound. Moreover, the methods can be changed according to the nature of the present problems in the context. There are no unique methodological characteristics of action research.
The types of research strategies selected will depend on the dissertation topic and the students’ action research. The best approach is to identify these approaches at an earlier stage so they can be used to address the questions.
Moreover, students need to identify the data that needs to be explored to develop the questions. Typically, an action research dissertation involves analysing data in which patterns, insights, and new understandings are identified.
The meaning of these patterns and insights is clearly explained to ensure that high levels of reliability and validity can be maintained.
A key approach in action research dissertations should be to identify limitations and use them as an advantage. This provides the ability to produce knowledge based on ground realities while also being useful for local participants.
This article aims to help students learn about action Research for the dissertation – the dos and the don’ts. It will help them to use a systematic approach towards writing action research dissertations.
Action research is an important approach towards resolving research problems and initiating a continuous reflection and learning process for students.
One of the strengths of action research is that it enables the researcher to directly participate in the research process. Moreover, researchers can obtain knowledge that is based on ground realities.
The process of writing an action research dissertation is different as compared to conventional research. Students are recommended to read as much as possible about action research before undertaking it since it can be a difficult process.
Also Read: What Are the Different Research Methods for Dissertation?
“Improve language, structure, style, and overall quality of your work. Get help from our experienced dissertation editors to improve the quality of your paper to First Class Standard. Click here to learn more about our Dissertation, Editing and Improvement Service .”
Action Research checklist
Frequently asked questions, what is meant by action research.
Action research is a problem-solving approach where researchers, often practitioners, study real-world issues in their context. They collaboratively identify problems, implement solutions, and reflect on outcomes to enhance practices and generate insights for continuous improvement.
You May Also Like
This article provides the key advantages of primary research over secondary research so you can make an informed decision.
You can transcribe an interview by converting a conversation into a written format including question-answer recording sessions between two or more people.
Struggling to figure out “whether I should choose primary research or secondary research in my dissertation?” Here are some tips to help you decide.
USEFUL LINKS
LEARNING RESOURCES
![what is an action research thesis researchprospect-reviews-trust-site](https://www.researchprospect.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/researchprospect-reviews-trust-site.webp)
COMPANY DETAILS
![what is an action research thesis Research-Prospect-Writing-Service](https://www.researchprospect.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Research-Prospect-Writing-Service.webp)
- How It Works
![what is an action research thesis](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/GC-Logo-Registered.png)
![](http://sektorel.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
How To Write A Dissertation Or Thesis
8 straightforward steps to craft an a-grade dissertation.
By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020
Writing a dissertation or thesis is not a simple task. It takes time, energy and a lot of will power to get you across the finish line. It’s not easy – but it doesn’t necessarily need to be a painful process. If you understand the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis, your research journey will be a lot smoother.
In this post, I’m going to outline the big-picture process of how to write a high-quality dissertation or thesis, without losing your mind along the way. If you’re just starting your research, this post is perfect for you. Alternatively, if you’ve already submitted your proposal, this article which covers how to structure a dissertation might be more helpful.
How To Write A Dissertation: 8 Steps
- Clearly understand what a dissertation (or thesis) is
- Find a unique and valuable research topic
- Craft a convincing research proposal
- Write up a strong introduction chapter
- Review the existing literature and compile a literature review
- Design a rigorous research strategy and undertake your own research
- Present the findings of your research
- Draw a conclusion and discuss the implications
![dissertation-writing-start Start writing your dissertation](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/dissertation-writing-start.png)
Step 1: Understand exactly what a dissertation is
This probably sounds like a no-brainer, but all too often, students come to us for help with their research and the underlying issue is that they don’t fully understand what a dissertation (or thesis) actually is.
So, what is a dissertation?
At its simplest, a dissertation or thesis is a formal piece of research , reflecting the standard research process . But what is the standard research process, you ask? The research process involves 4 key steps:
- Ask a very specific, well-articulated question (s) (your research topic)
- See what other researchers have said about it (if they’ve already answered it)
- If they haven’t answered it adequately, undertake your own data collection and analysis in a scientifically rigorous fashion
- Answer your original question(s), based on your analysis findings
![dissertation-process A dissertation or thesis is a formal piece of research, reflecting the standard four step academic research process.](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/dissertation-process.png)
In short, the research process is simply about asking and answering questions in a systematic fashion . This probably sounds pretty obvious, but people often think they’ve done “research”, when in fact what they have done is:
- Started with a vague, poorly articulated question
- Not taken the time to see what research has already been done regarding the question
- Collected data and opinions that support their gut and undertaken a flimsy analysis
- Drawn a shaky conclusion, based on that analysis
If you want to see the perfect example of this in action, look out for the next Facebook post where someone claims they’ve done “research”… All too often, people consider reading a few blog posts to constitute research. Its no surprise then that what they end up with is an opinion piece, not research. Okay, okay – I’ll climb off my soapbox now.
The key takeaway here is that a dissertation (or thesis) is a formal piece of research, reflecting the research process. It’s not an opinion piece , nor a place to push your agenda or try to convince someone of your position. Writing a good dissertation involves asking a question and taking a systematic, rigorous approach to answering it.
If you understand this and are comfortable leaving your opinions or preconceived ideas at the door, you’re already off to a good start!
![dissertation-opinion A dissertation is not an opinion piece, nor a place to push your agenda or try to convince someone of your position.](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/dissertation-opinion.png)
Step 2: Find a unique, valuable research topic
As we saw, the first step of the research process is to ask a specific, well-articulated question. In other words, you need to find a research topic that asks a specific question or set of questions (these are called research questions ). Sounds easy enough, right? All you’ve got to do is identify a question or two and you’ve got a winning research topic. Well, not quite…
A good dissertation or thesis topic has a few important attributes. Specifically, a solid research topic should be:
Let’s take a closer look at these:
Attribute #1: Clear
Your research topic needs to be crystal clear about what you’re planning to research, what you want to know, and within what context. There shouldn’t be any ambiguity or vagueness about what you’ll research.
Here’s an example of a clearly articulated research topic:
An analysis of consumer-based factors influencing organisational trust in British low-cost online equity brokerage firms.
As you can see in the example, its crystal clear what will be analysed (factors impacting organisational trust), amongst who (consumers) and in what context (British low-cost equity brokerage firms, based online).
Need a helping hand?
Attribute #2: Unique
Your research should be asking a question(s) that hasn’t been asked before, or that hasn’t been asked in a specific context (for example, in a specific country or industry).
For example, sticking organisational trust topic above, it’s quite likely that organisational trust factors in the UK have been investigated before, but the context (online low-cost equity brokerages) could make this research unique. Therefore, the context makes this research original.
One caveat when using context as the basis for originality – you need to have a good reason to suspect that your findings in this context might be different from the existing research – otherwise, there’s no reason to warrant researching it.
Attribute #3: Important
Simply asking a unique or original question is not enough – the question needs to create value. In other words, successfully answering your research questions should provide some value to the field of research or the industry. You can’t research something just to satisfy your curiosity. It needs to make some form of contribution either to research or industry.
For example, researching the factors influencing consumer trust would create value by enabling businesses to tailor their operations and marketing to leverage factors that promote trust. In other words, it would have a clear benefit to industry.
So, how do you go about finding a unique and valuable research topic? We explain that in detail in this video post – How To Find A Research Topic . Yeah, we’ve got you covered 😊
Step 3: Write a convincing research proposal
Once you’ve pinned down a high-quality research topic, the next step is to convince your university to let you research it. No matter how awesome you think your topic is, it still needs to get the rubber stamp before you can move forward with your research. The research proposal is the tool you’ll use for this job.
So, what’s in a research proposal?
The main “job” of a research proposal is to convince your university, advisor or committee that your research topic is worthy of approval. But convince them of what? Well, this varies from university to university, but generally, they want to see that:
- You have a clearly articulated, unique and important topic (this might sound familiar…)
- You’ve done some initial reading of the existing literature relevant to your topic (i.e. a literature review)
- You have a provisional plan in terms of how you will collect data and analyse it (i.e. a methodology)
At the proposal stage, it’s (generally) not expected that you’ve extensively reviewed the existing literature , but you will need to show that you’ve done enough reading to identify a clear gap for original (unique) research. Similarly, they generally don’t expect that you have a rock-solid research methodology mapped out, but you should have an idea of whether you’ll be undertaking qualitative or quantitative analysis , and how you’ll collect your data (we’ll discuss this in more detail later).
Long story short – don’t stress about having every detail of your research meticulously thought out at the proposal stage – this will develop as you progress through your research. However, you do need to show that you’ve “done your homework” and that your research is worthy of approval .
So, how do you go about crafting a high-quality, convincing proposal? We cover that in detail in this video post – How To Write A Top-Class Research Proposal . We’ve also got a video walkthrough of two proposal examples here .
Step 4: Craft a strong introduction chapter
Once your proposal’s been approved, its time to get writing your actual dissertation or thesis! The good news is that if you put the time into crafting a high-quality proposal, you’ve already got a head start on your first three chapters – introduction, literature review and methodology – as you can use your proposal as the basis for these.
Handy sidenote – our free dissertation & thesis template is a great way to speed up your dissertation writing journey.
What’s the introduction chapter all about?
The purpose of the introduction chapter is to set the scene for your research (dare I say, to introduce it…) so that the reader understands what you’ll be researching and why it’s important. In other words, it covers the same ground as the research proposal in that it justifies your research topic.
What goes into the introduction chapter?
This can vary slightly between universities and degrees, but generally, the introduction chapter will include the following:
- A brief background to the study, explaining the overall area of research
- A problem statement , explaining what the problem is with the current state of research (in other words, where the knowledge gap exists)
- Your research questions – in other words, the specific questions your study will seek to answer (based on the knowledge gap)
- The significance of your study – in other words, why it’s important and how its findings will be useful in the world
As you can see, this all about explaining the “what” and the “why” of your research (as opposed to the “how”). So, your introduction chapter is basically the salesman of your study, “selling” your research to the first-time reader and (hopefully) getting them interested to read more.
How do I write the introduction chapter, you ask? We cover that in detail in this post .
![thesis-intro The introduction chapter is where you set the scene for your research, detailing exactly what you’ll be researching and why it’s important.](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/thesis-intro.png)
Step 5: Undertake an in-depth literature review
As I mentioned earlier, you’ll need to do some initial review of the literature in Steps 2 and 3 to find your research gap and craft a convincing research proposal – but that’s just scratching the surface. Once you reach the literature review stage of your dissertation or thesis, you need to dig a lot deeper into the existing research and write up a comprehensive literature review chapter.
What’s the literature review all about?
There are two main stages in the literature review process:
Literature Review Step 1: Reading up
The first stage is for you to deep dive into the existing literature (journal articles, textbook chapters, industry reports, etc) to gain an in-depth understanding of the current state of research regarding your topic. While you don’t need to read every single article, you do need to ensure that you cover all literature that is related to your core research questions, and create a comprehensive catalogue of that literature , which you’ll use in the next step.
Reading and digesting all the relevant literature is a time consuming and intellectually demanding process. Many students underestimate just how much work goes into this step, so make sure that you allocate a good amount of time for this when planning out your research. Thankfully, there are ways to fast track the process – be sure to check out this article covering how to read journal articles quickly .
![Dissertation-Support-WP Dissertation Coaching](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/Dissertation-Support-WP.png)
Literature Review Step 2: Writing up
Once you’ve worked through the literature and digested it all, you’ll need to write up your literature review chapter. Many students make the mistake of thinking that the literature review chapter is simply a summary of what other researchers have said. While this is partly true, a literature review is much more than just a summary. To pull off a good literature review chapter, you’ll need to achieve at least 3 things:
- You need to synthesise the existing research , not just summarise it. In other words, you need to show how different pieces of theory fit together, what’s agreed on by researchers, what’s not.
- You need to highlight a research gap that your research is going to fill. In other words, you’ve got to outline the problem so that your research topic can provide a solution.
- You need to use the existing research to inform your methodology and approach to your own research design. For example, you might use questions or Likert scales from previous studies in your your own survey design .
As you can see, a good literature review is more than just a summary of the published research. It’s the foundation on which your own research is built, so it deserves a lot of love and attention. Take the time to craft a comprehensive literature review with a suitable structure .
But, how do I actually write the literature review chapter, you ask? We cover that in detail in this video post .
Step 6: Carry out your own research
Once you’ve completed your literature review and have a sound understanding of the existing research, its time to develop your own research (finally!). You’ll design this research specifically so that you can find the answers to your unique research question.
There are two steps here – designing your research strategy and executing on it:
1 – Design your research strategy
The first step is to design your research strategy and craft a methodology chapter . I won’t get into the technicalities of the methodology chapter here, but in simple terms, this chapter is about explaining the “how” of your research. If you recall, the introduction and literature review chapters discussed the “what” and the “why”, so it makes sense that the next point to cover is the “how” –that’s what the methodology chapter is all about.
In this section, you’ll need to make firm decisions about your research design. This includes things like:
- Your research philosophy (e.g. positivism or interpretivism )
- Your overall methodology (e.g. qualitative , quantitative or mixed methods)
- Your data collection strategy (e.g. interviews , focus groups, surveys)
- Your data analysis strategy (e.g. content analysis , correlation analysis, regression)
If these words have got your head spinning, don’t worry! We’ll explain these in plain language in other posts. It’s not essential that you understand the intricacies of research design (yet!). The key takeaway here is that you’ll need to make decisions about how you’ll design your own research, and you’ll need to describe (and justify) your decisions in your methodology chapter.
2 – Execute: Collect and analyse your data
Once you’ve worked out your research design, you’ll put it into action and start collecting your data. This might mean undertaking interviews, hosting an online survey or any other data collection method. Data collection can take quite a bit of time (especially if you host in-person interviews), so be sure to factor sufficient time into your project plan for this. Oftentimes, things don’t go 100% to plan (for example, you don’t get as many survey responses as you hoped for), so bake a little extra time into your budget here.
Once you’ve collected your data, you’ll need to do some data preparation before you can sink your teeth into the analysis. For example:
- If you carry out interviews or focus groups, you’ll need to transcribe your audio data to text (i.e. a Word document).
- If you collect quantitative survey data, you’ll need to clean up your data and get it into the right format for whichever analysis software you use (for example, SPSS, R or STATA).
Once you’ve completed your data prep, you’ll undertake your analysis, using the techniques that you described in your methodology. Depending on what you find in your analysis, you might also do some additional forms of analysis that you hadn’t planned for. For example, you might see something in the data that raises new questions or that requires clarification with further analysis.
The type(s) of analysis that you’ll use depend entirely on the nature of your research and your research questions. For example:
- If your research if exploratory in nature, you’ll often use qualitative analysis techniques .
- If your research is confirmatory in nature, you’ll often use quantitative analysis techniques
- If your research involves a mix of both, you might use a mixed methods approach
Again, if these words have got your head spinning, don’t worry! We’ll explain these concepts and techniques in other posts. The key takeaway is simply that there’s no “one size fits all” for research design and methodology – it all depends on your topic, your research questions and your data. So, don’t be surprised if your study colleagues take a completely different approach to yours.
![research-philosophy (2) The research philosophy is at the core of the methodology chapter](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/research-philosophy-2.png)
Step 7: Present your findings
Once you’ve completed your analysis, it’s time to present your findings (finally!). In a dissertation or thesis, you’ll typically present your findings in two chapters – the results chapter and the discussion chapter .
What’s the difference between the results chapter and the discussion chapter?
While these two chapters are similar, the results chapter generally just presents the processed data neatly and clearly without interpretation, while the discussion chapter explains the story the data are telling – in other words, it provides your interpretation of the results.
For example, if you were researching the factors that influence consumer trust, you might have used a quantitative approach to identify the relationship between potential factors (e.g. perceived integrity and competence of the organisation) and consumer trust. In this case:
- Your results chapter would just present the results of the statistical tests. For example, correlation results or differences between groups. In other words, the processed numbers.
- Your discussion chapter would explain what the numbers mean in relation to your research question(s). For example, Factor 1 has a weak relationship with consumer trust, while Factor 2 has a strong relationship.
Depending on the university and degree, these two chapters (results and discussion) are sometimes merged into one , so be sure to check with your institution what their preference is. Regardless of the chapter structure, this section is about presenting the findings of your research in a clear, easy to understand fashion.
Importantly, your discussion here needs to link back to your research questions (which you outlined in the introduction or literature review chapter). In other words, it needs to answer the key questions you asked (or at least attempt to answer them).
For example, if we look at the sample research topic:
In this case, the discussion section would clearly outline which factors seem to have a noteworthy influence on organisational trust. By doing so, they are answering the overarching question and fulfilling the purpose of the research .
![research-question-link Your discussion here needs to link back to your research questions. It needs to answer the key questions you asked in your introduction.](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/research-question-link.png)
For more information about the results chapter , check out this post for qualitative studies and this post for quantitative studies .
Step 8: The Final Step Draw a conclusion and discuss the implications
Last but not least, you’ll need to wrap up your research with the conclusion chapter . In this chapter, you’ll bring your research full circle by highlighting the key findings of your study and explaining what the implications of these findings are.
What exactly are key findings? The key findings are those findings which directly relate to your original research questions and overall research objectives (which you discussed in your introduction chapter). The implications, on the other hand, explain what your findings mean for industry, or for research in your area.
Sticking with the consumer trust topic example, the conclusion might look something like this:
Key findings
This study set out to identify which factors influence consumer-based trust in British low-cost online equity brokerage firms. The results suggest that the following factors have a large impact on consumer trust:
While the following factors have a very limited impact on consumer trust:
Notably, within the 25-30 age groups, Factors E had a noticeably larger impact, which may be explained by…
Implications
The findings having noteworthy implications for British low-cost online equity brokers. Specifically:
The large impact of Factors X and Y implies that brokers need to consider….
The limited impact of Factor E implies that brokers need to…
As you can see, the conclusion chapter is basically explaining the “what” (what your study found) and the “so what?” (what the findings mean for the industry or research). This brings the study full circle and closes off the document.
![diss-conclusions In the final chapter, you’ll bring your research full circle by highlighting the key findings of your study and the implications thereof.](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/diss-conclusions.png)
Let’s recap – how to write a dissertation or thesis
You’re still with me? Impressive! I know that this post was a long one, but hopefully you’ve learnt a thing or two about how to write a dissertation or thesis, and are now better equipped to start your own research.
To recap, the 8 steps to writing a quality dissertation (or thesis) are as follows:
- Understand what a dissertation (or thesis) is – a research project that follows the research process.
- Find a unique (original) and important research topic
- Craft a convincing dissertation or thesis research proposal
- Write a clear, compelling introduction chapter
- Undertake a thorough review of the existing research and write up a literature review
- Undertake your own research
- Present and interpret your findings
Once you’ve wrapped up the core chapters, all that’s typically left is the abstract , reference list and appendices. As always, be sure to check with your university if they have any additional requirements in terms of structure or content.
![title= what is an action research thesis](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/course.png)
Psst... there’s more!
This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...
20 Comments
thankfull >>>this is very useful
Thank you, it was really helpful
unquestionably, this amazing simplified way of teaching. Really , I couldn’t find in the literature words that fully explicit my great thanks to you. However, I could only say thanks a-lot.
Great to hear that – thanks for the feedback. Good luck writing your dissertation/thesis.
This is the most comprehensive explanation of how to write a dissertation. Many thanks for sharing it free of charge.
Very rich presentation. Thank you
Thanks Derek Jansen|GRADCOACH, I find it very useful guide to arrange my activities and proceed to research!
Thank you so much for such a marvelous teaching .I am so convinced that am going to write a comprehensive and a distinct masters dissertation
It is an amazing comprehensive explanation
This was straightforward. Thank you!
I can say that your explanations are simple and enlightening – understanding what you have done here is easy for me. Could you write more about the different types of research methods specific to the three methodologies: quan, qual and MM. I look forward to interacting with this website more in the future.
Thanks for the feedback and suggestions 🙂
Hello, your write ups is quite educative. However, l have challenges in going about my research questions which is below; *Building the enablers of organisational growth through effective governance and purposeful leadership.*
Very educating.
Just listening to the name of the dissertation makes the student nervous. As writing a top-quality dissertation is a difficult task as it is a lengthy topic, requires a lot of research and understanding and is usually around 10,000 to 15000 words. Sometimes due to studies, unbalanced workload or lack of research and writing skill students look for dissertation submission from professional writers.
Thank you 💕😊 very much. I was confused but your comprehensive explanation has cleared my doubts of ever presenting a good thesis. Thank you.
thank you so much, that was so useful
Hi. Where is the excel spread sheet ark?
could you please help me look at your thesis paper to enable me to do the portion that has to do with the specification
my topic is “the impact of domestic revenue mobilization.
Submit a Comment Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
- Print Friendly
We’re fighting to restore access to 500,000+ books in court this week. Join us!
Internet Archive Audio
- This Just In
- Grateful Dead
- Old Time Radio
- 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
- Audio Books & Poetry
- Computers, Technology and Science
- Music, Arts & Culture
- News & Public Affairs
- Spirituality & Religion
- Radio News Archive
- Flickr Commons
- Occupy Wall Street Flickr
- NASA Images
- Solar System Collection
- Ames Research Center
- All Software
- Old School Emulation
- MS-DOS Games
- Historical Software
- Classic PC Games
- Software Library
- Kodi Archive and Support File
- Vintage Software
- CD-ROM Software
- CD-ROM Software Library
- Software Sites
- Tucows Software Library
- Shareware CD-ROMs
- Software Capsules Compilation
- CD-ROM Images
- ZX Spectrum
- DOOM Level CD
![what is an action research thesis what is an action research thesis](https://archive.org/images/book-lend.png)
- Smithsonian Libraries
- FEDLINK (US)
- Lincoln Collection
- American Libraries
- Canadian Libraries
- Universal Library
- Project Gutenberg
- Children's Library
- Biodiversity Heritage Library
- Books by Language
- Additional Collections
- Prelinger Archives
- Democracy Now!
- Occupy Wall Street
- TV NSA Clip Library
- Animation & Cartoons
- Arts & Music
- Computers & Technology
- Cultural & Academic Films
- Ephemeral Films
- Sports Videos
- Videogame Videos
- Youth Media
Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.
Mobile Apps
- Wayback Machine (iOS)
- Wayback Machine (Android)
Browser Extensions
Archive-it subscription.
- Explore the Collections
- Build Collections
Save Page Now
Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.
Please enter a valid web address
- Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape
The action research dissertation : a guide for students and faculty
Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.
- Graphic Violence
- Explicit Sexual Content
- Hate Speech
- Misinformation/Disinformation
- Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
- Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata
obscured text
![[WorldCat (this item)] [WorldCat (this item)]](https://archive.org/images/worldcat-small.png)
plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews
2 Favorites
DOWNLOAD OPTIONS
No suitable files to display here.
IN COLLECTIONS
Uploaded by station08.cebu on July 21, 2020
SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)
Professional Learning through an Action Research Thesis
Cite this chapter.
- Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt &
- Margaret Fletcher
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the quality characteristics of an action research thesis, compared to traditional research thesis writing, by drawing on the literature and our experience with supervising and examining action research theses. We identify key problem areas in the literature and suggest effective strategies for meeting these challenges and avoiding pitfalls through reflective practice and questioning insight. We include sets of crucial questions for higher degree students to address through critical reflection on their action research projects. We use the term ‘postgraduate’ to describe all research higher degree studies and thesis writing.
Everyone can rise above their circumstances and achieve success if they are dedicated to and passionate about what they do. (Nelson Mandela, 17 December 2009)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Subscribe and save.
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Compact, lightweight edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
- Durable hardcover edition
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Teacher Responsive Teaching and Learning Initiatives Through Action Research
![what is an action research thesis what is an action research thesis](https://media.springernature.com/w215h120/springer-static/image/art%3Aplaceholder%2Fimages/placeholder-figure-springernature.png)
Action Research as an Inquiry-Based Teaching Practice Model for Teacher Education Programs
Utilizing Action Research for Learning Process Skills and Mindsets
Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1991). Defining, confining or refining action research? In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.) Action research for change and development (pp. 3–9). Aldershot (UK): Gower Publishing Company.
Google Scholar
Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2001). Conclusion: Broadening the bandwidth of validity: Issues and choice-points for improving the quality of action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds) Handbook of action research: Participatory inquiry and practice (pp. 447–455). London: Sage.
Brause, R. (1999). Writing your doctoral dissertation . London: Routledge Falmer.
Brown, R. (1994). The ‘big picture’ about managing writing. In O. Zuber-Skerritt & Y. Ryan (Eds) Quality in postgraduate education (pp. 90–109). London: Kogan Page.
Brown, R. (1998). How to focus your reader with the main message. In L. Conrad & O. Zuber-Skerritt (Eds) Developing as researchers (2nd edn, pp. 11–24). Brisbane: GIHE, Griffith University.
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds) (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brydon-Miller, M., & Greenwood, D. (2006). A re-examination of the relationship between action research and human subjects review processes. Action Research , 4(1), 117–128.
Article Google Scholar
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research . London: Falmer Press.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your own organisation (2nd edn). London: Sage Publications.
Conrad, L., Perry, C., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Alternatives to traditional postgraduate supervision in the social sciences. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.) Starting research: Supervision and training . Brisbane: TEDI, University of Queensland.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds) (2011). Handbook of qualitative research (4th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dick, B. (1993). You want to do an action research thesis? How to conduct and report action research. Retrieved from www.aral.com.au /resources/arthesis.html.
Dick, B. (2005). Making process accessible: Robust processes for learning, change and action research. DLitt thesis, Buckingham, UK: IMCA. Retrieved from www.aral.com.au /DLitt/index.html).
Dick, B. (2012). Action learning: Using teams to build leadership and resilience. Retrieved from www.aral.com.au /resources/actionlearning.pdf.
Dotlich, D. L., & Noel, J. L. (1998). Action learning: How the world’s top companies are re-creating their leaders and themselves . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Eikeland, O. (2006). Condescending ethics and action research. Action Research , 4(1), 37–47.
Fletcher, M.A. (2005a). Knowledge management for new times with new technologies to promote new learning: a futures approach to self-managed learning. In Proceedings from the Eighth IASTED International Conference on Computers And Advanced Technology In Education (CATE 2005) August 29–31, Oranjestad, Aruba.
Fletcher, M. (2005b). Action learning/action research: A teacher-centred approach for self-improving schools. Literacy Learning: Middle Years , 13, 16–24.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th edn). London: Sage Publications.
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd edn). New York: Longman.
Gottlieb, N. (1994). Supervising the writing of a thesis. In O. Zuber-Skerritt & Y. Ryan (Eds) Quality in postgraduate education (pp. 110–119). London: Kogan Page.
Herr, K. G., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty . New York: Sage Publications.
Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitative research . London: Sage Publications.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research . Dordrecht: Springer.
Book Google Scholar
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers . New York: Harper and Row.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th edn). London: Sage.
McNiff, J. (Ed.). (2013). Action research: Principles and practice (3rd edn). London: Routledge.
Passfield, R. (1996). Action learning for professional and organisational development: An action research case study in higher education, PhD thesis, Brisbane: Griffith University.
Passfield, R. (1997). Managing the energy of thesis writing: A Chakra perspective. ALAR Journal , 2(2), 19–39.
Phillips, E. M. (1996). The quality of a good thesis. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.) Frameworks for postgraduate education (pp. 197–212). Lismore, NSW, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.
Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (2000). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors (3rd edn). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Reason, P., & Marshall, J. (2001). On working with graduate research students. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds), Handbook of action research: Participatory inquiry and practice (pp. 413–419). London: Sage.
Ryan, Y., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Eds) (1999). Supervising postgraduates from non-English speaking backgrounds . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . London: Temple Smith.
Sheehan, P. (1994). From thesis writing to research application: Learning the research culture. In O. Zuber-Skerritt & Y. Ryan (Eds) Quality in postgraduate education (pp. 14–23). London: Kogan Page.
Sillitoe, J., & Crosling, G. (1999). Thesis planning and writing: a structured approach. In Y. Ryan & O. Zuber-Skerritt (Eds) Supervising postgraduates from non-English speaking backgrounds (pp. 167–174). Buckingham, UK: Society of Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Whittle, J. (1992). Research culture, supervision practices and postgraduate performance. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.) Starting research: Supervision and training (pp. 86–107). Brisbane: TEDI, University of Queensland.
Wisker, G. (2012). The good supervisor (2nd edn). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wood, L., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2013). PALAR as a methodology for community engagement by faculties of education. South African Journal of Education , 33(4), 1–15.
Zeni, J. (Ed.) (2001). Ethical issues in practitioner research . New York: Teachers College Press.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.) (1996). Frameworks for postgraduate education . Lismore: Southern Cross University Press.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001). Action learning and action research: Paradigm, praxis and programs. In S. Sankaran, B. Dick, R. Passfield & P. Swepson (Eds) Effective change management using action research and action learning: Concepts, frameworks, processes and applications (pp. 1–20). Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2005). A model of values and actions for personal knowledge management. Journal of Workplace Learning , 17(1/2), 49–64.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2011). Action leadership: Towards a participatory paradigm . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer International.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2014). Supervising action research theses and dissertations. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds) Encyclopedia of action research 738–741. London: Sage.
Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Fletcher, M. (2007). The quality of an action research thesis. Quality Assurance in Education , 15(4), 413–436.
Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Perry, C. (2002). Action research within organisations and university thesis writing. The Learning Organisation , 9(4), 171–179.
Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Ryan, Y. (Eds) (1994). Quality in postgraduate education . London: Kogan Page.
Download references
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Copyright information
© 2015 Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt, Margaret Fletcher and Judith Kearney
About this chapter
Zuber-Skerritt, O., Fletcher, M. (2015). Professional Learning through an Action Research Thesis. In: Professional Learning in Higher Education and Communities. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137455185_8
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137455185_8
Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN : 978-1-349-49809-3
Online ISBN : 978-1-137-45518-5
eBook Packages : Palgrave Education Collection Education (R0)
Share this chapter
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
Action research.
- January 2015
- In book: The Cambridge Guide to Research in Language Teaching and Learning (pp.99-104)
- Edition: First
- Publisher: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Editors: J. D. Brown & C. Coombe
![what is an action research thesis Anne Burns at UNSW Sydney](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/279871302455299-1443737926288_Q64/Anne-Burns-2.jpg)
- UNSW Sydney
Abstract and Figures
![what is an action research thesis .1 Interrelated experiences in action research phases](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne-Burns-2/publication/282199978/figure/tbl1/AS:669527352283142@1536639168821/1-Interrelated-experiences-in-action-research-phases_Q320.jpg)
Discover the world's research
- 25+ million members
- 160+ million publication pages
- 2.3+ billion citations
![what is an action research thesis Kenneth M. Zeichner](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/363874797801474-1463765920482_Q64/Kenneth-Zeichner.jpg)
- Corey Hawes Denos
![what is an action research thesis Kelleen Toohey](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/276980403589142-1443048682496_Q64/Kelleen-Toohey.jpg)
- Kathy Neilson
- Colleen Tsoukalas
- Keith Richards
- Alison Mackey
- Susan M. Gass
- Sandra Lee Mckay
- Zoltán Dörnyei
- Tatsuya Taguchi
- Herbert Altricher
![what is an action research thesis Peter Posch](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/651551710392323-1532353441775_Q64/Peter-Posch-4.jpg)
- Bridget Somekh
- Susan M. Bacon
![what is an action research thesis Nina Spada](https://c5.rgstatic.net/m/4671872220764/images/template/default/profile/profile_default_m.jpg)
- Maria Frohlich
![what is an action research thesis Hilary Bradbury](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/332899648851969-1456380869326_Q64/Hilary-Bradbury.jpg)
- Helen Silva Joyce
![what is an action research thesis Diana Slade](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/273552809132039-1442231480585_Q64/Diana-Slade.jpg)
- Recruit researchers
- Join for free
- Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up
Frequently asked questions
What’s the difference between action research and a case study.
Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.
Frequently asked questions: Methodology
Attrition refers to participants leaving a study. It always happens to some extent—for example, in randomized controlled trials for medical research.
Differential attrition occurs when attrition or dropout rates differ systematically between the intervention and the control group . As a result, the characteristics of the participants who drop out differ from the characteristics of those who stay in the study. Because of this, study results may be biased .
Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.
Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.
A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”
To make quantitative observations , you need to use instruments that are capable of measuring the quantity you want to observe. For example, you might use a ruler to measure the length of an object or a thermometer to measure its temperature.
Criterion validity and construct validity are both types of measurement validity . In other words, they both show you how accurately a method measures something.
While construct validity is the degree to which a test or other measurement method measures what it claims to measure, criterion validity is the degree to which a test can predictively (in the future) or concurrently (in the present) measure something.
Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity . You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity in order to achieve construct validity.
Convergent validity and discriminant validity are both subtypes of construct validity . Together, they help you evaluate whether a test measures the concept it was designed to measure.
- Convergent validity indicates whether a test that is designed to measure a particular construct correlates with other tests that assess the same or similar construct.
- Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related. This type of validity is also called divergent validity .
You need to assess both in order to demonstrate construct validity. Neither one alone is sufficient for establishing construct validity.
- Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related
Content validity shows you how accurately a test or other measurement method taps into the various aspects of the specific construct you are researching.
In other words, it helps you answer the question: “does the test measure all aspects of the construct I want to measure?” If it does, then the test has high content validity.
The higher the content validity, the more accurate the measurement of the construct.
If the test fails to include parts of the construct, or irrelevant parts are included, the validity of the instrument is threatened, which brings your results into question.
Face validity and content validity are similar in that they both evaluate how suitable the content of a test is. The difference is that face validity is subjective, and assesses content at surface level.
When a test has strong face validity, anyone would agree that the test’s questions appear to measure what they are intended to measure.
For example, looking at a 4th grade math test consisting of problems in which students have to add and multiply, most people would agree that it has strong face validity (i.e., it looks like a math test).
On the other hand, content validity evaluates how well a test represents all the aspects of a topic. Assessing content validity is more systematic and relies on expert evaluation. of each question, analyzing whether each one covers the aspects that the test was designed to cover.
A 4th grade math test would have high content validity if it covered all the skills taught in that grade. Experts(in this case, math teachers), would have to evaluate the content validity by comparing the test to the learning objectives.
Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method . Unlike probability sampling (which involves some form of random selection ), the initial individuals selected to be studied are the ones who recruit new participants.
Because not every member of the target population has an equal chance of being recruited into the sample, selection in snowball sampling is non-random.
Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method , where there is not an equal chance for every member of the population to be included in the sample .
This means that you cannot use inferential statistics and make generalizations —often the goal of quantitative research . As such, a snowball sample is not representative of the target population and is usually a better fit for qualitative research .
Snowball sampling relies on the use of referrals. Here, the researcher recruits one or more initial participants, who then recruit the next ones.
Participants share similar characteristics and/or know each other. Because of this, not every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample, giving rise to sampling bias .
Snowball sampling is best used in the following cases:
- If there is no sampling frame available (e.g., people with a rare disease)
- If the population of interest is hard to access or locate (e.g., people experiencing homelessness)
- If the research focuses on a sensitive topic (e.g., extramarital affairs)
The reproducibility and replicability of a study can be ensured by writing a transparent, detailed method section and using clear, unambiguous language.
Reproducibility and replicability are related terms.
- Reproducing research entails reanalyzing the existing data in the same manner.
- Replicating (or repeating ) the research entails reconducting the entire analysis, including the collection of new data .
- A successful reproduction shows that the data analyses were conducted in a fair and honest manner.
- A successful replication shows that the reliability of the results is high.
Stratified sampling and quota sampling both involve dividing the population into subgroups and selecting units from each subgroup. The purpose in both cases is to select a representative sample and/or to allow comparisons between subgroups.
The main difference is that in stratified sampling, you draw a random sample from each subgroup ( probability sampling ). In quota sampling you select a predetermined number or proportion of units, in a non-random manner ( non-probability sampling ).
Purposive and convenience sampling are both sampling methods that are typically used in qualitative data collection.
A convenience sample is drawn from a source that is conveniently accessible to the researcher. Convenience sampling does not distinguish characteristics among the participants. On the other hand, purposive sampling focuses on selecting participants possessing characteristics associated with the research study.
The findings of studies based on either convenience or purposive sampling can only be generalized to the (sub)population from which the sample is drawn, and not to the entire population.
Random sampling or probability sampling is based on random selection. This means that each unit has an equal chance (i.e., equal probability) of being included in the sample.
On the other hand, convenience sampling involves stopping people at random, which means that not everyone has an equal chance of being selected depending on the place, time, or day you are collecting your data.
Convenience sampling and quota sampling are both non-probability sampling methods. They both use non-random criteria like availability, geographical proximity, or expert knowledge to recruit study participants.
However, in convenience sampling, you continue to sample units or cases until you reach the required sample size.
In quota sampling, you first need to divide your population of interest into subgroups (strata) and estimate their proportions (quota) in the population. Then you can start your data collection, using convenience sampling to recruit participants, until the proportions in each subgroup coincide with the estimated proportions in the population.
A sampling frame is a list of every member in the entire population . It is important that the sampling frame is as complete as possible, so that your sample accurately reflects your population.
Stratified and cluster sampling may look similar, but bear in mind that groups created in cluster sampling are heterogeneous , so the individual characteristics in the cluster vary. In contrast, groups created in stratified sampling are homogeneous , as units share characteristics.
Relatedly, in cluster sampling you randomly select entire groups and include all units of each group in your sample. However, in stratified sampling, you select some units of all groups and include them in your sample. In this way, both methods can ensure that your sample is representative of the target population .
A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.
The key difference between observational studies and experimental designs is that a well-done observational study does not influence the responses of participants, while experiments do have some sort of treatment condition applied to at least some participants by random assignment .
An observational study is a great choice for you if your research question is based purely on observations. If there are ethical, logistical, or practical concerns that prevent you from conducting a traditional experiment , an observational study may be a good choice. In an observational study, there is no interference or manipulation of the research subjects, as well as no control or treatment groups .
It’s often best to ask a variety of people to review your measurements. You can ask experts, such as other researchers, or laypeople, such as potential participants, to judge the face validity of tests.
While experts have a deep understanding of research methods , the people you’re studying can provide you with valuable insights you may have missed otherwise.
Face validity is important because it’s a simple first step to measuring the overall validity of a test or technique. It’s a relatively intuitive, quick, and easy way to start checking whether a new measure seems useful at first glance.
Good face validity means that anyone who reviews your measure says that it seems to be measuring what it’s supposed to. With poor face validity, someone reviewing your measure may be left confused about what you’re measuring and why you’re using this method.
Face validity is about whether a test appears to measure what it’s supposed to measure. This type of validity is concerned with whether a measure seems relevant and appropriate for what it’s assessing only on the surface.
Statistical analyses are often applied to test validity with data from your measures. You test convergent validity and discriminant validity with correlations to see if results from your test are positively or negatively related to those of other established tests.
You can also use regression analyses to assess whether your measure is actually predictive of outcomes that you expect it to predict theoretically. A regression analysis that supports your expectations strengthens your claim of construct validity .
When designing or evaluating a measure, construct validity helps you ensure you’re actually measuring the construct you’re interested in. If you don’t have construct validity, you may inadvertently measure unrelated or distinct constructs and lose precision in your research.
Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity , because it covers all of the other types. You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity to achieve construct validity.
Construct validity is about how well a test measures the concept it was designed to evaluate. It’s one of four types of measurement validity , which includes construct validity, face validity , and criterion validity.
There are two subtypes of construct validity.
- Convergent validity : The extent to which your measure corresponds to measures of related constructs
- Discriminant validity : The extent to which your measure is unrelated or negatively related to measures of distinct constructs
Naturalistic observation is a valuable tool because of its flexibility, external validity , and suitability for topics that can’t be studied in a lab setting.
The downsides of naturalistic observation include its lack of scientific control , ethical considerations , and potential for bias from observers and subjects.
Naturalistic observation is a qualitative research method where you record the behaviors of your research subjects in real world settings. You avoid interfering or influencing anything in a naturalistic observation.
You can think of naturalistic observation as “people watching” with a purpose.
A dependent variable is what changes as a result of the independent variable manipulation in experiments . It’s what you’re interested in measuring, and it “depends” on your independent variable.
In statistics, dependent variables are also called:
- Response variables (they respond to a change in another variable)
- Outcome variables (they represent the outcome you want to measure)
- Left-hand-side variables (they appear on the left-hand side of a regression equation)
An independent variable is the variable you manipulate, control, or vary in an experimental study to explore its effects. It’s called “independent” because it’s not influenced by any other variables in the study.
Independent variables are also called:
- Explanatory variables (they explain an event or outcome)
- Predictor variables (they can be used to predict the value of a dependent variable)
- Right-hand-side variables (they appear on the right-hand side of a regression equation).
As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.
Overall, your focus group questions should be:
- Open-ended and flexible
- Impossible to answer with “yes” or “no” (questions that start with “why” or “how” are often best)
- Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
- Unbiased and neutral
A structured interview is a data collection method that relies on asking questions in a set order to collect data on a topic. They are often quantitative in nature. Structured interviews are best used when:
- You already have a very clear understanding of your topic. Perhaps significant research has already been conducted, or you have done some prior research yourself, but you already possess a baseline for designing strong structured questions.
- You are constrained in terms of time or resources and need to analyze your data quickly and efficiently.
- Your research question depends on strong parity between participants, with environmental conditions held constant.
More flexible interview options include semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .
Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favorably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .
Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.
This type of bias can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behavior accordingly.
The interviewer effect is a type of bias that emerges when a characteristic of an interviewer (race, age, gender identity, etc.) influences the responses given by the interviewee.
There is a risk of an interviewer effect in all types of interviews , but it can be mitigated by writing really high-quality interview questions.
A semi-structured interview is a blend of structured and unstructured types of interviews. Semi-structured interviews are best used when:
- You have prior interview experience. Spontaneous questions are deceptively challenging, and it’s easy to accidentally ask a leading question or make a participant uncomfortable.
- Your research question is exploratory in nature. Participant answers can guide future research questions and help you develop a more robust knowledge base for future research.
An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview, but it is not always the best fit for your research topic.
Unstructured interviews are best used when:
- You are an experienced interviewer and have a very strong background in your research topic, since it is challenging to ask spontaneous, colloquial questions.
- Your research question is exploratory in nature. While you may have developed hypotheses, you are open to discovering new or shifting viewpoints through the interview process.
- You are seeking descriptive data, and are ready to ask questions that will deepen and contextualize your initial thoughts and hypotheses.
- Your research depends on forming connections with your participants and making them feel comfortable revealing deeper emotions, lived experiences, or thoughts.
The four most common types of interviews are:
- Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order.
- Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
- Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
- Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.
Deductive reasoning is commonly used in scientific research, and it’s especially associated with quantitative research .
In research, you might have come across something called the hypothetico-deductive method . It’s the scientific method of testing hypotheses to check whether your predictions are substantiated by real-world data.
Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning , where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions.
Deductive reasoning is also called deductive logic.
There are many different types of inductive reasoning that people use formally or informally.
Here are a few common types:
- Inductive generalization : You use observations about a sample to come to a conclusion about the population it came from.
- Statistical generalization: You use specific numbers about samples to make statements about populations.
- Causal reasoning: You make cause-and-effect links between different things.
- Sign reasoning: You make a conclusion about a correlational relationship between different things.
- Analogical reasoning: You make a conclusion about something based on its similarities to something else.
Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down.
Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions.
In inductive research , you start by making observations or gathering data. Then, you take a broad scan of your data and search for patterns. Finally, you make general conclusions that you might incorporate into theories.
Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It’s usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you proceed from general information to specific conclusions.
Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning.
A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.
A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).
Triangulation can help:
- Reduce research bias that comes from using a single method, theory, or investigator
- Enhance validity by approaching the same topic with different tools
- Establish credibility by giving you a complete picture of the research problem
But triangulation can also pose problems:
- It’s time-consuming and labor-intensive, often involving an interdisciplinary team.
- Your results may be inconsistent or even contradictory.
There are four main types of triangulation :
- Data triangulation : Using data from different times, spaces, and people
- Investigator triangulation : Involving multiple researchers in collecting or analyzing data
- Theory triangulation : Using varying theoretical perspectives in your research
- Methodological triangulation : Using different methodologies to approach the same topic
Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.
However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.
Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.
Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.
Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.
In general, the peer review process follows the following steps:
- First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
- Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or
- Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
- Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
- Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.
Exploratory research is often used when the issue you’re studying is new or when the data collection process is challenging for some reason.
You can use exploratory research if you have a general idea or a specific question that you want to study but there is no preexisting knowledge or paradigm with which to study it.
Exploratory research is a methodology approach that explores research questions that have not previously been studied in depth. It is often used when the issue you’re studying is new, or the data collection process is challenging in some way.
Explanatory research is used to investigate how or why a phenomenon occurs. Therefore, this type of research is often one of the first stages in the research process , serving as a jumping-off point for future research.
Exploratory research aims to explore the main aspects of an under-researched problem, while explanatory research aims to explain the causes and consequences of a well-defined problem.
Explanatory research is a research method used to investigate how or why something occurs when only a small amount of information is available pertaining to that topic. It can help you increase your understanding of a given topic.
Clean data are valid, accurate, complete, consistent, unique, and uniform. Dirty data include inconsistencies and errors.
Dirty data can come from any part of the research process, including poor research design , inappropriate measurement materials, or flawed data entry.
Data cleaning takes place between data collection and data analyses. But you can use some methods even before collecting data.
For clean data, you should start by designing measures that collect valid data. Data validation at the time of data entry or collection helps you minimize the amount of data cleaning you’ll need to do.
After data collection, you can use data standardization and data transformation to clean your data. You’ll also deal with any missing values, outliers, and duplicate values.
Every dataset requires different techniques to clean dirty data , but you need to address these issues in a systematic way. You focus on finding and resolving data points that don’t agree or fit with the rest of your dataset.
These data might be missing values, outliers, duplicate values, incorrectly formatted, or irrelevant. You’ll start with screening and diagnosing your data. Then, you’ll often standardize and accept or remove data to make your dataset consistent and valid.
Data cleaning is necessary for valid and appropriate analyses. Dirty data contain inconsistencies or errors , but cleaning your data helps you minimize or resolve these.
Without data cleaning, you could end up with a Type I or II error in your conclusion. These types of erroneous conclusions can be practically significant with important consequences, because they lead to misplaced investments or missed opportunities.
Data cleaning involves spotting and resolving potential data inconsistencies or errors to improve your data quality. An error is any value (e.g., recorded weight) that doesn’t reflect the true value (e.g., actual weight) of something that’s being measured.
In this process, you review, analyze, detect, modify, or remove “dirty” data to make your dataset “clean.” Data cleaning is also called data cleansing or data scrubbing.
Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.
These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.
Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .
You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.
You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.
Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.
Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.
Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .
These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.
In multistage sampling , you can use probability or non-probability sampling methods .
For a probability sample, you have to conduct probability sampling at every stage.
You can mix it up by using simple random sampling , systematic sampling , or stratified sampling to select units at different stages, depending on what is applicable and relevant to your study.
Multistage sampling can simplify data collection when you have large, geographically spread samples, and you can obtain a probability sample without a complete sampling frame.
But multistage sampling may not lead to a representative sample, and larger samples are needed for multistage samples to achieve the statistical properties of simple random samples .
These are four of the most common mixed methods designs :
- Convergent parallel: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time and analyzed separately. After both analyses are complete, compare your results to draw overall conclusions.
- Embedded: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.
- Explanatory sequential: Quantitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by qualitative data. You can use this design if you think your qualitative data will explain and contextualize your quantitative findings.
- Exploratory sequential: Qualitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by quantitative data. You can use this design if you think the quantitative data will confirm or validate your qualitative findings.
Triangulation in research means using multiple datasets, methods, theories and/or investigators to address a research question. It’s a research strategy that can help you enhance the validity and credibility of your findings.
Triangulation is mainly used in qualitative research , but it’s also commonly applied in quantitative research . Mixed methods research always uses triangulation.
In multistage sampling , or multistage cluster sampling, you draw a sample from a population using smaller and smaller groups at each stage.
This method is often used to collect data from a large, geographically spread group of people in national surveys, for example. You take advantage of hierarchical groupings (e.g., from state to city to neighborhood) to create a sample that’s less expensive and time-consuming to collect data from.
No, the steepness or slope of the line isn’t related to the correlation coefficient value. The correlation coefficient only tells you how closely your data fit on a line, so two datasets with the same correlation coefficient can have very different slopes.
To find the slope of the line, you’ll need to perform a regression analysis .
Correlation coefficients always range between -1 and 1.
The sign of the coefficient tells you the direction of the relationship: a positive value means the variables change together in the same direction, while a negative value means they change together in opposite directions.
The absolute value of a number is equal to the number without its sign. The absolute value of a correlation coefficient tells you the magnitude of the correlation: the greater the absolute value, the stronger the correlation.
These are the assumptions your data must meet if you want to use Pearson’s r :
- Both variables are on an interval or ratio level of measurement
- Data from both variables follow normal distributions
- Your data have no outliers
- Your data is from a random or representative sample
- You expect a linear relationship between the two variables
Quantitative research designs can be divided into two main categories:
- Correlational and descriptive designs are used to investigate characteristics, averages, trends, and associations between variables.
- Experimental and quasi-experimental designs are used to test causal relationships .
Qualitative research designs tend to be more flexible. Common types of qualitative design include case study , ethnography , and grounded theory designs.
A well-planned research design helps ensure that your methods match your research aims, that you collect high-quality data, and that you use the right kind of analysis to answer your questions, utilizing credible sources . This allows you to draw valid , trustworthy conclusions.
The priorities of a research design can vary depending on the field, but you usually have to specify:
- Your research questions and/or hypotheses
- Your overall approach (e.g., qualitative or quantitative )
- The type of design you’re using (e.g., a survey , experiment , or case study )
- Your sampling methods or criteria for selecting subjects
- Your data collection methods (e.g., questionnaires , observations)
- Your data collection procedures (e.g., operationalization , timing and data management)
- Your data analysis methods (e.g., statistical tests or thematic analysis )
A research design is a strategy for answering your research question . It defines your overall approach and determines how you will collect and analyze data.
Questionnaires can be self-administered or researcher-administered.
Self-administered questionnaires can be delivered online or in paper-and-pen formats, in person or through mail. All questions are standardized so that all respondents receive the same questions with identical wording.
Researcher-administered questionnaires are interviews that take place by phone, in-person, or online between researchers and respondents. You can gain deeper insights by clarifying questions for respondents or asking follow-up questions.
You can organize the questions logically, with a clear progression from simple to complex, or randomly between respondents. A logical flow helps respondents process the questionnaire easier and quicker, but it may lead to bias. Randomization can minimize the bias from order effects.
Closed-ended, or restricted-choice, questions offer respondents a fixed set of choices to select from. These questions are easier to answer quickly.
Open-ended or long-form questions allow respondents to answer in their own words. Because there are no restrictions on their choices, respondents can answer in ways that researchers may not have otherwise considered.
A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analyzing data from people using questionnaires.
The third variable and directionality problems are two main reasons why correlation isn’t causation .
The third variable problem means that a confounding variable affects both variables to make them seem causally related when they are not.
The directionality problem is when two variables correlate and might actually have a causal relationship, but it’s impossible to conclude which variable causes changes in the other.
Correlation describes an association between variables : when one variable changes, so does the other. A correlation is a statistical indicator of the relationship between variables.
Causation means that changes in one variable brings about changes in the other (i.e., there is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables). The two variables are correlated with each other, and there’s also a causal link between them.
While causation and correlation can exist simultaneously, correlation does not imply causation. In other words, correlation is simply a relationship where A relates to B—but A doesn’t necessarily cause B to happen (or vice versa). Mistaking correlation for causation is a common error and can lead to false cause fallacy .
Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.
- In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
- In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.
In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .
A correlation is usually tested for two variables at a time, but you can test correlations between three or more variables.
A correlation coefficient is a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between your variables.
Different types of correlation coefficients might be appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions . The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r ) is commonly used to assess a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.
A correlational research design investigates relationships between two variables (or more) without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. It’s a non-experimental type of quantitative research .
A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.
- A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
- A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
- A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.
Random error is almost always present in scientific studies, even in highly controlled settings. While you can’t eradicate it completely, you can reduce random error by taking repeated measurements, using a large sample, and controlling extraneous variables .
You can avoid systematic error through careful design of your sampling , data collection , and analysis procedures. For example, use triangulation to measure your variables using multiple methods; regularly calibrate instruments or procedures; use random sampling and random assignment ; and apply masking (blinding) where possible.
Systematic error is generally a bigger problem in research.
With random error, multiple measurements will tend to cluster around the true value. When you’re collecting data from a large sample , the errors in different directions will cancel each other out.
Systematic errors are much more problematic because they can skew your data away from the true value. This can lead you to false conclusions ( Type I and II errors ) about the relationship between the variables you’re studying.
Random and systematic error are two types of measurement error.
Random error is a chance difference between the observed and true values of something (e.g., a researcher misreading a weighing scale records an incorrect measurement).
Systematic error is a consistent or proportional difference between the observed and true values of something (e.g., a miscalibrated scale consistently records weights as higher than they actually are).
On graphs, the explanatory variable is conventionally placed on the x-axis, while the response variable is placed on the y-axis.
- If you have quantitative variables , use a scatterplot or a line graph.
- If your response variable is categorical, use a scatterplot or a line graph.
- If your explanatory variable is categorical, use a bar graph.
The term “ explanatory variable ” is sometimes preferred over “ independent variable ” because, in real world contexts, independent variables are often influenced by other variables. This means they aren’t totally independent.
Multiple independent variables may also be correlated with each other, so “explanatory variables” is a more appropriate term.
The difference between explanatory and response variables is simple:
- An explanatory variable is the expected cause, and it explains the results.
- A response variable is the expected effect, and it responds to other variables.
In a controlled experiment , all extraneous variables are held constant so that they can’t influence the results. Controlled experiments require:
- A control group that receives a standard treatment, a fake treatment, or no treatment.
- Random assignment of participants to ensure the groups are equivalent.
Depending on your study topic, there are various other methods of controlling variables .
There are 4 main types of extraneous variables :
- Demand characteristics : environmental cues that encourage participants to conform to researchers’ expectations.
- Experimenter effects : unintentional actions by researchers that influence study outcomes.
- Situational variables : environmental variables that alter participants’ behaviors.
- Participant variables : any characteristic or aspect of a participant’s background that could affect study results.
An extraneous variable is any variable that you’re not investigating that can potentially affect the dependent variable of your research study.
A confounding variable is a type of extraneous variable that not only affects the dependent variable, but is also related to the independent variable.
In a factorial design, multiple independent variables are tested.
If you test two variables, each level of one independent variable is combined with each level of the other independent variable to create different conditions.
Within-subjects designs have many potential threats to internal validity , but they are also very statistically powerful .
Advantages:
- Only requires small samples
- Statistically powerful
- Removes the effects of individual differences on the outcomes
Disadvantages:
- Internal validity threats reduce the likelihood of establishing a direct relationship between variables
- Time-related effects, such as growth, can influence the outcomes
- Carryover effects mean that the specific order of different treatments affect the outcomes
While a between-subjects design has fewer threats to internal validity , it also requires more participants for high statistical power than a within-subjects design .
- Prevents carryover effects of learning and fatigue.
- Shorter study duration.
- Needs larger samples for high power.
- Uses more resources to recruit participants, administer sessions, cover costs, etc.
- Individual differences may be an alternative explanation for results.
Yes. Between-subjects and within-subjects designs can be combined in a single study when you have two or more independent variables (a factorial design). In a mixed factorial design, one variable is altered between subjects and another is altered within subjects.
In a between-subjects design , every participant experiences only one condition, and researchers assess group differences between participants in various conditions.
In a within-subjects design , each participant experiences all conditions, and researchers test the same participants repeatedly for differences between conditions.
The word “between” means that you’re comparing different conditions between groups, while the word “within” means you’re comparing different conditions within the same group.
Random assignment is used in experiments with a between-groups or independent measures design. In this research design, there’s usually a control group and one or more experimental groups. Random assignment helps ensure that the groups are comparable.
In general, you should always use random assignment in this type of experimental design when it is ethically possible and makes sense for your study topic.
To implement random assignment , assign a unique number to every member of your study’s sample .
Then, you can use a random number generator or a lottery method to randomly assign each number to a control or experimental group. You can also do so manually, by flipping a coin or rolling a dice to randomly assign participants to groups.
Random selection, or random sampling , is a way of selecting members of a population for your study’s sample.
In contrast, random assignment is a way of sorting the sample into control and experimental groups.
Random sampling enhances the external validity or generalizability of your results, while random assignment improves the internal validity of your study.
In experimental research, random assignment is a way of placing participants from your sample into different groups using randomization. With this method, every member of the sample has a known or equal chance of being placed in a control group or an experimental group.
“Controlling for a variable” means measuring extraneous variables and accounting for them statistically to remove their effects on other variables.
Researchers often model control variable data along with independent and dependent variable data in regression analyses and ANCOVAs . That way, you can isolate the control variable’s effects from the relationship between the variables of interest.
Control variables help you establish a correlational or causal relationship between variables by enhancing internal validity .
If you don’t control relevant extraneous variables , they may influence the outcomes of your study, and you may not be able to demonstrate that your results are really an effect of your independent variable .
A control variable is any variable that’s held constant in a research study. It’s not a variable of interest in the study, but it’s controlled because it could influence the outcomes.
Including mediators and moderators in your research helps you go beyond studying a simple relationship between two variables for a fuller picture of the real world. They are important to consider when studying complex correlational or causal relationships.
Mediators are part of the causal pathway of an effect, and they tell you how or why an effect takes place. Moderators usually help you judge the external validity of your study by identifying the limitations of when the relationship between variables holds.
If something is a mediating variable :
- It’s caused by the independent variable .
- It influences the dependent variable
- When it’s taken into account, the statistical correlation between the independent and dependent variables is higher than when it isn’t considered.
A confounder is a third variable that affects variables of interest and makes them seem related when they are not. In contrast, a mediator is the mechanism of a relationship between two variables: it explains the process by which they are related.
A mediator variable explains the process through which two variables are related, while a moderator variable affects the strength and direction of that relationship.
There are three key steps in systematic sampling :
- Define and list your population , ensuring that it is not ordered in a cyclical or periodic order.
- Decide on your sample size and calculate your interval, k , by dividing your population by your target sample size.
- Choose every k th member of the population as your sample.
Systematic sampling is a probability sampling method where researchers select members of the population at a regular interval – for example, by selecting every 15th person on a list of the population. If the population is in a random order, this can imitate the benefits of simple random sampling .
Yes, you can create a stratified sample using multiple characteristics, but you must ensure that every participant in your study belongs to one and only one subgroup. In this case, you multiply the numbers of subgroups for each characteristic to get the total number of groups.
For example, if you were stratifying by location with three subgroups (urban, rural, or suburban) and marital status with five subgroups (single, divorced, widowed, married, or partnered), you would have 3 x 5 = 15 subgroups.
You should use stratified sampling when your sample can be divided into mutually exclusive and exhaustive subgroups that you believe will take on different mean values for the variable that you’re studying.
Using stratified sampling will allow you to obtain more precise (with lower variance ) statistical estimates of whatever you are trying to measure.
For example, say you want to investigate how income differs based on educational attainment, but you know that this relationship can vary based on race. Using stratified sampling, you can ensure you obtain a large enough sample from each racial group, allowing you to draw more precise conclusions.
In stratified sampling , researchers divide subjects into subgroups called strata based on characteristics that they share (e.g., race, gender, educational attainment).
Once divided, each subgroup is randomly sampled using another probability sampling method.
Cluster sampling is more time- and cost-efficient than other probability sampling methods , particularly when it comes to large samples spread across a wide geographical area.
However, it provides less statistical certainty than other methods, such as simple random sampling , because it is difficult to ensure that your clusters properly represent the population as a whole.
There are three types of cluster sampling : single-stage, double-stage and multi-stage clustering. In all three types, you first divide the population into clusters, then randomly select clusters for use in your sample.
- In single-stage sampling , you collect data from every unit within the selected clusters.
- In double-stage sampling , you select a random sample of units from within the clusters.
- In multi-stage sampling , you repeat the procedure of randomly sampling elements from within the clusters until you have reached a manageable sample.
Cluster sampling is a probability sampling method in which you divide a population into clusters, such as districts or schools, and then randomly select some of these clusters as your sample.
The clusters should ideally each be mini-representations of the population as a whole.
If properly implemented, simple random sampling is usually the best sampling method for ensuring both internal and external validity . However, it can sometimes be impractical and expensive to implement, depending on the size of the population to be studied,
If you have a list of every member of the population and the ability to reach whichever members are selected, you can use simple random sampling.
The American Community Survey is an example of simple random sampling . In order to collect detailed data on the population of the US, the Census Bureau officials randomly select 3.5 million households per year and use a variety of methods to convince them to fill out the survey.
Simple random sampling is a type of probability sampling in which the researcher randomly selects a subset of participants from a population . Each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Data is then collected from as large a percentage as possible of this random subset.
Quasi-experimental design is most useful in situations where it would be unethical or impractical to run a true experiment .
Quasi-experiments have lower internal validity than true experiments, but they often have higher external validity as they can use real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.
A quasi-experiment is a type of research design that attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The main difference with a true experiment is that the groups are not randomly assigned.
Blinding is important to reduce research bias (e.g., observer bias , demand characteristics ) and ensure a study’s internal validity .
If participants know whether they are in a control or treatment group , they may adjust their behavior in ways that affect the outcome that researchers are trying to measure. If the people administering the treatment are aware of group assignment, they may treat participants differently and thus directly or indirectly influence the final results.
- In a single-blind study , only the participants are blinded.
- In a double-blind study , both participants and experimenters are blinded.
- In a triple-blind study , the assignment is hidden not only from participants and experimenters, but also from the researchers analyzing the data.
Blinding means hiding who is assigned to the treatment group and who is assigned to the control group in an experiment .
A true experiment (a.k.a. a controlled experiment) always includes at least one control group that doesn’t receive the experimental treatment.
However, some experiments use a within-subjects design to test treatments without a control group. In these designs, you usually compare one group’s outcomes before and after a treatment (instead of comparing outcomes between different groups).
For strong internal validity , it’s usually best to include a control group if possible. Without a control group, it’s harder to be certain that the outcome was caused by the experimental treatment and not by other variables.
An experimental group, also known as a treatment group, receives the treatment whose effect researchers wish to study, whereas a control group does not. They should be identical in all other ways.
Individual Likert-type questions are generally considered ordinal data , because the items have clear rank order, but don’t have an even distribution.
Overall Likert scale scores are sometimes treated as interval data. These scores are considered to have directionality and even spacing between them.
The type of data determines what statistical tests you should use to analyze your data.
A Likert scale is a rating scale that quantitatively assesses opinions, attitudes, or behaviors. It is made up of 4 or more questions that measure a single attitude or trait when response scores are combined.
To use a Likert scale in a survey , you present participants with Likert-type questions or statements, and a continuum of items, usually with 5 or 7 possible responses, to capture their degree of agreement.
In scientific research, concepts are the abstract ideas or phenomena that are being studied (e.g., educational achievement). Variables are properties or characteristics of the concept (e.g., performance at school), while indicators are ways of measuring or quantifying variables (e.g., yearly grade reports).
The process of turning abstract concepts into measurable variables and indicators is called operationalization .
There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:
- Prepare and organize your data.
- Review and explore your data.
- Develop a data coding system.
- Assign codes to the data.
- Identify recurring themes.
The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .
There are five common approaches to qualitative research :
- Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
- Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
- Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
- Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
- Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.
Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.
Operationalization means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations.
For example, the concept of social anxiety isn’t directly observable, but it can be operationally defined in terms of self-rating scores, behavioral avoidance of crowded places, or physical anxiety symptoms in social situations.
Before collecting data , it’s important to consider how you will operationalize the variables that you want to measure.
When conducting research, collecting original data has significant advantages:
- You can tailor data collection to your specific research aims (e.g. understanding the needs of your consumers or user testing your website)
- You can control and standardize the process for high reliability and validity (e.g. choosing appropriate measurements and sampling methods )
However, there are also some drawbacks: data collection can be time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive. In some cases, it’s more efficient to use secondary data that has already been collected by someone else, but the data might be less reliable.
Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.
There are several methods you can use to decrease the impact of confounding variables on your research: restriction, matching, statistical control and randomization.
In restriction , you restrict your sample by only including certain subjects that have the same values of potential confounding variables.
In matching , you match each of the subjects in your treatment group with a counterpart in the comparison group. The matched subjects have the same values on any potential confounding variables, and only differ in the independent variable .
In statistical control , you include potential confounders as variables in your regression .
In randomization , you randomly assign the treatment (or independent variable) in your study to a sufficiently large number of subjects, which allows you to control for all potential confounding variables.
A confounding variable is closely related to both the independent and dependent variables in a study. An independent variable represents the supposed cause , while the dependent variable is the supposed effect . A confounding variable is a third variable that influences both the independent and dependent variables.
Failing to account for confounding variables can cause you to wrongly estimate the relationship between your independent and dependent variables.
To ensure the internal validity of your research, you must consider the impact of confounding variables. If you fail to account for them, you might over- or underestimate the causal relationship between your independent and dependent variables , or even find a causal relationship where none exists.
Yes, but including more than one of either type requires multiple research questions .
For example, if you are interested in the effect of a diet on health, you can use multiple measures of health: blood sugar, blood pressure, weight, pulse, and many more. Each of these is its own dependent variable with its own research question.
You could also choose to look at the effect of exercise levels as well as diet, or even the additional effect of the two combined. Each of these is a separate independent variable .
To ensure the internal validity of an experiment , you should only change one independent variable at a time.
No. The value of a dependent variable depends on an independent variable, so a variable cannot be both independent and dependent at the same time. It must be either the cause or the effect, not both!
You want to find out how blood sugar levels are affected by drinking diet soda and regular soda, so you conduct an experiment .
- The type of soda – diet or regular – is the independent variable .
- The level of blood sugar that you measure is the dependent variable – it changes depending on the type of soda.
Determining cause and effect is one of the most important parts of scientific research. It’s essential to know which is the cause – the independent variable – and which is the effect – the dependent variable.
In non-probability sampling , the sample is selected based on non-random criteria, and not every member of the population has a chance of being included.
Common non-probability sampling methods include convenience sampling , voluntary response sampling, purposive sampling , snowball sampling, and quota sampling .
Probability sampling means that every member of the target population has a known chance of being included in the sample.
Probability sampling methods include simple random sampling , systematic sampling , stratified sampling , and cluster sampling .
Using careful research design and sampling procedures can help you avoid sampling bias . Oversampling can be used to correct undercoverage bias .
Some common types of sampling bias include self-selection bias , nonresponse bias , undercoverage bias , survivorship bias , pre-screening or advertising bias, and healthy user bias.
Sampling bias is a threat to external validity – it limits the generalizability of your findings to a broader group of people.
A sampling error is the difference between a population parameter and a sample statistic .
A statistic refers to measures about the sample , while a parameter refers to measures about the population .
Populations are used when a research question requires data from every member of the population. This is usually only feasible when the population is small and easily accessible.
Samples are used to make inferences about populations . Samples are easier to collect data from because they are practical, cost-effective, convenient, and manageable.
There are seven threats to external validity : selection bias , history, experimenter effect, Hawthorne effect , testing effect, aptitude-treatment and situation effect.
The two types of external validity are population validity (whether you can generalize to other groups of people) and ecological validity (whether you can generalize to other situations and settings).
The external validity of a study is the extent to which you can generalize your findings to different groups of people, situations, and measures.
Cross-sectional studies cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship or analyze behavior over a period of time. To investigate cause and effect, you need to do a longitudinal study or an experimental study .
Cross-sectional studies are less expensive and time-consuming than many other types of study. They can provide useful insights into a population’s characteristics and identify correlations for further research.
Sometimes only cross-sectional data is available for analysis; other times your research question may only require a cross-sectional study to answer it.
Longitudinal studies can last anywhere from weeks to decades, although they tend to be at least a year long.
The 1970 British Cohort Study , which has collected data on the lives of 17,000 Brits since their births in 1970, is one well-known example of a longitudinal study .
Longitudinal studies are better to establish the correct sequence of events, identify changes over time, and provide insight into cause-and-effect relationships, but they also tend to be more expensive and time-consuming than other types of studies.
Longitudinal studies and cross-sectional studies are two different types of research design . In a cross-sectional study you collect data from a population at a specific point in time; in a longitudinal study you repeatedly collect data from the same sample over an extended period of time.
Longitudinal study | Cross-sectional study |
---|---|
observations | Observations at a in time |
Observes the multiple times | Observes (a “cross-section”) in the population |
Follows in participants over time | Provides of society at a given point |
There are eight threats to internal validity : history, maturation, instrumentation, testing, selection bias , regression to the mean, social interaction and attrition .
Internal validity is the extent to which you can be confident that a cause-and-effect relationship established in a study cannot be explained by other factors.
In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .
The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .
- If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
- If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
- If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.
A confounding variable , also called a confounder or confounding factor, is a third variable in a study examining a potential cause-and-effect relationship.
A confounding variable is related to both the supposed cause and the supposed effect of the study. It can be difficult to separate the true effect of the independent variable from the effect of the confounding variable.
In your research design , it’s important to identify potential confounding variables and plan how you will reduce their impact.
Discrete and continuous variables are two types of quantitative variables :
- Discrete variables represent counts (e.g. the number of objects in a collection).
- Continuous variables represent measurable amounts (e.g. water volume or weight).
Quantitative variables are any variables where the data represent amounts (e.g. height, weight, or age).
Categorical variables are any variables where the data represent groups. This includes rankings (e.g. finishing places in a race), classifications (e.g. brands of cereal), and binary outcomes (e.g. coin flips).
You need to know what type of variables you are working with to choose the right statistical test for your data and interpret your results .
You can think of independent and dependent variables in terms of cause and effect: an independent variable is the variable you think is the cause , while a dependent variable is the effect .
In an experiment, you manipulate the independent variable and measure the outcome in the dependent variable. For example, in an experiment about the effect of nutrients on crop growth:
- The independent variable is the amount of nutrients added to the crop field.
- The dependent variable is the biomass of the crops at harvest time.
Defining your variables, and deciding how you will manipulate and measure them, is an important part of experimental design .
Experimental design means planning a set of procedures to investigate a relationship between variables . To design a controlled experiment, you need:
- A testable hypothesis
- At least one independent variable that can be precisely manipulated
- At least one dependent variable that can be precisely measured
When designing the experiment, you decide:
- How you will manipulate the variable(s)
- How you will control for any potential confounding variables
- How many subjects or samples will be included in the study
- How subjects will be assigned to treatment levels
Experimental design is essential to the internal and external validity of your experiment.
I nternal validity is the degree of confidence that the causal relationship you are testing is not influenced by other factors or variables .
External validity is the extent to which your results can be generalized to other contexts.
The validity of your experiment depends on your experimental design .
Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:
- Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
- Validity refers to the accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).
If you are doing experimental research, you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.
A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.
In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.
Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.
Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.
Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.
Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).
In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .
In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.
Ask our team
Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you.
- Email [email protected]
- Start live chat
- Call +1 (510) 822-8066
- WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040
![what is an action research thesis Support team - Nina](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/nina-250x250a.jpg)
Our team helps students graduate by offering:
- A world-class citation generator
- Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
- Innovative Citation Checker software
- Professional proofreading services
- Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more
Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:
- PhD dissertations
- Research proposals
- Personal statements
- Admission essays
- Motivation letters
- Reflection papers
- Journal articles
- Capstone projects
Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .
The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.
The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.
You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .
![](http://sektorel.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Action research is a research method that aims to simultaneously investigate and solve an issue. In other words, as its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time. It was first coined as a term in 1944 by MIT professor Kurt Lewin.A highly interactive method, action research is often used in the social ...
Action Research. Dissertation Outline. i.e., research questions and design)What is your study about - i.e., what problem(s) is your. tudy going to address, how, and why? (This should include both a brief identification of the problem that motivates the study, and the goals of the study -. i.e., what you hope to accomplish) What is action ...
Action research (AR) is a methodical process of self-inquiry accomplished by practitioners to unravel work-related problems. This paper analyzed the action research reports (ARRs) in terms of ...
to action research methodologies or methods; to the client system, and perhaps (with extreme caution) to other similar systems; and. to possible changes to the client system, and perhaps (with extreme caution) to changes in other settings. As an introduction, a one-sentence summary of the finding.
tioners. Examples of action research projects undertaken by healthcare practitioners in a range of situations are provided later in this chapter. The development of action research: a brief background Whether the reader is a novice or is progressing with an action research project, it would be useful to be aware of how action research has devel-
It will show that action research is appropriate not only for a dissertation, but also a deeply rewarding experience for both the researcher and participants. This bookhelps students understand the ways action research dissertations are different from more traditional dissertations andprepares students and their committees for the unique ...
After much anxiety and considerable experimentation, I resolved the problem of 'fit' between action research and the traditional thesis format by creating an alternative architecture based on each of the action research cycles. While still producing a bulky 'doorstopper', I feel this structure is a better reflection of the way the study ...
Action-research is a type of social research that considers the resolution of a collective problem, in which researchers and participants engage in a cooperative and participatory way intending to ...
The first edition of The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty was a first-of-its-kind reference, distilling the authors' decades of action research experience into a handy guide for graduate students. The Second Edition continues to provide an accessible roadmap that honors the complexity of action research, while ...
The PhD thesis as a threshold into action research: an invitation to educational action researchers to collaborate with supervisors and students in peripheral environments. ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the PhD process as one of the paths researchers take to enter the action research paradigm.
Action research can be defined as "an approach in which the action researcher and a client collaborate in the diagnosis of the problem and in the development of a solution based on the diagnosis".In other words, one of the main characteristic traits of action research relates to collaboration between researcher and member of organisation in order to solve organizational problems.
Action research and scientific method: Presumed discrepancies and actual similarities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 29.4: 416-431. DOI: 10.1177/0021886393294003. Suggests that action research is application of the scientific method and fact-finding to applied settings, done in collaboration with partners. Views action research and ...
Action research is a research method that aims to simultaneously investigate and solve an issue. In other words, as its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time. It was first coined as a term in 1944 by MIT professor Kurt Lewin. A highly interactive method, action research is often used in the social ...
the rightness of an action can be determined in a sense only by its social utility. Action research can be treated as a joint approach of the researcher and. (co-)participants of the research to ...
Action research is a research strategy which combines research with action and participation in the field. As a method, it goes back to the period immediately post the Second World War (see "The history of action research", below) and has become increasingly popular over the last few years, along with other qualitative methods, as people come to see the value in collecting rich data by ...
THE ACTION RESEARCH THESIS Described next are the parts that might make up a master's thesis using action research. This is not meant to be a recipe; rather, it is a flexible guideline. The order and parts to be included may vary depending on your research topic and the requirements of your college or university. Your advisor may also ask for ...
The Do's and Don'ts. Make yourself familiar with the complexities and requirements of action research before conducting the study. This will help you in preparing the introduction to the dissertation. The first step is to write a winning proposal to establish your research problem and decide on the research's approach and direction. Action research problems play a critical role in ...
15 • modify our plan in the light of what we have found, and continue with the 'action', • monitor what we do, • evaluate the modified action, • [continue] until we are satisfied with that aspect of our work.(p. 7) The process that the researcher goes through to achieve understanding is a spiral of action research cycles consisting of four major phrases: 'planning, acting, observing and
Craft a convincing dissertation or thesis research proposal. Write a clear, compelling introduction chapter. Undertake a thorough review of the existing research and write up a literature review. Undertake your own research. Present and interpret your findings. Draw a conclusion and discuss the implications.
"The Action Research Dissertation is a must-have resource for any student contemplating an action research project, thesis, or dissertation and equally valuable to researchers undertaking and writing up their action research."--Jacket Includes bibliographical references (pages 133-145) and index
Abstract. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the quality characteristics of an action research thesis, compared to traditional research thesis writing, by drawing on the literature and our experience with supervising and examining action research theses. We identify key problem areas in the literature and suggest effective strategies ...
Action research (AR) is a research approach that is grounded in practical action (the action component) while at the same time focused on generating, informing and building theory (the research ...
Attrition refers to participants leaving a study. It always happens to some extent—for example, in randomized controlled trials for medical research. Differential attrition occurs when attrition or dropout rates differ systematically between the intervention and the control group.As a result, the characteristics of the participants who drop out differ from the characteristics of those who ...