Introduction
Change and innovation are invaluable for a competitive organization. Action Research (AR) is an approach that appears to offer a consistent guideline for turning innovation into a continuous process that becomes naturally customized to the changing context in which a user company finds itself. In order to describe AR, a literature review on the matter is provided in this paper with regard to the impact that this approach may have on the activities of an organization.
Literature Review
In the first chapter of their work, “Introduction: Action Research, Diversity, and Democracy” Greenwood and Levin (2007) provide a quick overview of their view of AR. According to Greenwood and Levin (2007), action research (also called “participatory research”,” human inquiry”, and “action science”) is an approach to “social research carried out by a team that encompasses a professional action researcher and the members of an organization, community, or network (“stakeholders”) who are seeking to improve the participants’ situation” (p. 4). In turn, Coghlan and Brannick (2014) define AR as both the process of research and the approach to this process. For Coghlan (2011), however, AR is more than an approach: it is a worldview “that finds expression in collaborative inquiry and learning-in-action in order to generate actionable knowledge” (Coghlan, 2011, p. 79). All these definitions have a ground, and, to demonstrate it, the features of the phenomenon should be discussed.
Features
The article by Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, and Maguire (2003) introduces readers to the journal “Action Research” and its editorial board, the members of which were the question “Why AR?” With the help of their answers, the authors have managed to define the key features of AR that include participation and democracy as well as bringing together theory and practice, learning and action. The same features are emphasized by Brydon-Miller et al. (2003), Coghlan and Brannick (2014), Salehi and Yaghtin (2015).
The very essence of AR, in the view of Greenwood and Levin (2007), lies in the ideas of democracy or liberalization. This liberalization appears to spread to every level of AR, not only the level of collaboration. It would be a bit of a caricature to use these words, but according to the authors, there should be no discrimination between methods: be they qualitative, quantitative, or mixed, they can be used in case they produce relevant knowledge. No discrimination is expected between practice and theory, action and thought: in fact, the authors suggest that drawing a harsh line between the two dimensions is harmful to research. Finally, Greenwood and Levin (2007), believe that no discrimination between disciplines is allowed: AR is an interdisciplinary approach.
Similarly, according to Brydon-Miller et al. (2003), AR does not presuppose a value-free approach to knowledge instead suggesting an “explicitly political, socially engaged, and democratic practice” (p. 13) The promotion of social justice is central for AR, and the respect towards people and their ability to understand is inconsistency with the democratization of knowledge gaining process.
The idea of bringing theory and practice together is also essential for AR. Coghlan and Brannick (2014) specifically emphasize that AR is not learning about action, but researching in action. As a result, the input data for AR keeps changing, and it must be taken into account. Coghlan (2011) dwells on practical knowing and its relation with science knowledge that results in “actionable” knowledge – the one that can be used in practice (p. 65).
AR is multidimensional in every aspect, including its roots and its current branches. Brydon-Miller et al. (2003) provide a short historical background to the phenomenon, beginning with John Dewey, and naming a number of approaches that were “disparate” but linked with the ideas concerning knowledge generation and democracy (p. 11). Similarly, Coghlan (2011) points out that the roots of the approach are numerous (including even Aristotelian philosophy). Lewin’s work, however, was especially emphasized by the author, and the key points of his study (first of all, the idea of bringing theory and practice together and the democratic ideas) have been shown. Greenwood and Levin (2007 authors point out that there are different opinions concerning AR, and they are rather reluctant to consider any view (including their own) as the “right” one. Still, AR provides its own framework for the research process.
Research Process
The key stages of the AR process within an organization are suggested in the chapter “Introducing Action Research” of the work “Doing action research in your own organization” by Coghlan and Brannick (2014). The authors suggest a plan that includes the construction (defining the problem and the context), planning, taking action, and learning stages. According to the authors, the reflection and making the resulting knowledge useful is what distinguishes AR from other research approaches. Greenwood and Levin (2007) also describe the construction stage: without using the term they point out that without defining the problem and “pooling” relevant knowledge from every possible source, AR is impossible. According to Coghlan and Brannick (2014), the aims of AR include the elimination of problems, changes in the organization, providing its members with “self-help competencies” and adding to scientific knowledge (p. 5). One could point out that the practical side of AR appears to be in favor of this sequence of aims. Still, it seems that the democracy of the approach would not allow discriminating practice and theory: both aspects of AR are equally important throughout the course of the process which is supposed to be a constantly changing and updating loop (Salehi and Yaghtin, 2015).
Impact
The expected outcome of adopting AR by an organization is considered to be positive. Greenwood and Levin (2007) suggest that the quality of research conducted with the help of AR increases. Coghlan (2011) believes that AR has bigger potential in terms of management and is not used to the limit of its possibilities. Salehi and Yaghtin (2015) point out that AR is essential for innovation, and that in turn is vital for a competitive organization (p. 300). Other researchers, for example, Cabaroglu (2014), demonstrate the impact of AR usage on the participants themselves which reminds one of the personal liberalizations that Greenwood and Levin (2007) mention as a possible interpretation of the AR democratization process. According to Cabaroglu (2014), AR may have a positive impact on the participants’ performance and skills that include improved self-efficacy, increased self-awareness, enhanced problem-solving skills, and growing autonomy.
Conclusion
Enthusiasts may regard AR as a worldview, and the reason for that, most certainly, lies in the philosophy upon which the approach is based. Still, the key features of AR that include a democratic approach to knowledge and participation along with a requirement for merging theory and practice seem to be promising to any user regardless of his or her enthusiasm. The respect for knowledge and shareholders that is expected from an AR practitioner appears to be a consistent guideline for any research. Finally, the emphasis on learning transforms AR into a loop-like strategy that is fit to be used for research in organizations that seek to improve their state and value innovation and change.
References
Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why Action Research? Action Research, 1(1), 9-28.
Cabaroglu, N. (2014). Professional development through action research: Impact on self-efficacy. System, 44, 79-88. Web.
Coghlan, D. (2011). Action Research: Exploring Perspectives on a Philosophy of Practical Knowing. The Academy Of Management Annals, 5(1), 53-87.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization (4th ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Salehi, F., & Yaghtin, A. (2015). Action Research Innovation Cycle: Lean Thinking as a Transformational System. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 293-302.