Skip to main content

Action Research Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Research Design in Business and Management

Abstract

This chapter addresses the peculiarities, characteristics, and major fallacies of action research design. This research design is a change-oriented approach. Its central assumption is that complex social processes can best be studied by introducing change into these processes and observing their effects. The fundamental basis for action research is taking actions to address organizational problems and their associated unsatisfactory conditions. Also, researchers find relevant information on how to write an action research paper and learn about typical methodologies used for this research design. The chapter closes with referring to overlapping and adjacent research designs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002). The concept of action research. The Learning Organization,9(3), 125–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger, G. G. (2015). Lösungsorientierte Beratung. 5. Auflage. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. (1999). Investigating Information Systems with Action Research. Communications of AIS, Volume 2, Article 19. Available online at https://wise.vub.ac.be/sites/default/files/thesis_info/action_research.pdf.

  • Baskerville, R. (2001). Conducting action research: high risk and high reward in theory and practice. In E. M. Trauth (Ed.), Qualitative research in is: issues and trends (pp. 192–217). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. & Lee. A. (1999). Distinctions Among Different Types of Generalizing in Information Systems Research.” In O. Ngwenyama et al., (Ed.), New IT Technologies in Organizational Processes: Field Studies and Theoretical Reflections on the Future of Work. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research methods. European Journal of Information Systems,7(2), 90–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blichfeldt, B. S., & Andersen, J. R. (2006). Creating a wider audience for action research: Learning from case-study research. Journal of Research Practice, 2(1), Article D2. Retrieved May 10, 2021, from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/23/69.

  • Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education,98(1), 53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunning, C. (1995). Placing action learning and action research in context. International Management Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cauchick, M. (2011). Metodologia de Pesquisa em Engenharia ee Produção e Gestão de Operações. (2nd ed.). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (2005). Roles, politics and ethics in action research design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(6), 533–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Sein, M. K. (2005). Being proactive: Where action research meets design research. ICIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collatto, D. C., Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P., & Bentz, I. G. (2018). Is action design research indeed necessary? Analysis and synergies between action research and design science research. Systemic Practice and Action Research,31(3), 239–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2002). Action research for operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,22(2), 220–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. B. (1993). Action research and organizational development. Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R. M. & Martinsons, M. G. (2007). Action Research and Consulting. In Ned Kock (Ed.), Information systems action research. An applied view of emerging concepts and methods,vol. 13. New York: Springer (Integrated Series in Information Systems, vol. 13), pp. 377–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal,14(1), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, B. (2003). Rehabilitating action research: Response to Davydd Greenwood’s and Björn Gustavsen’s papers on action research perspectives. Concepts and Transformation, 7(2), 2002 and 8(1), 2003. Concepts and Transformation, 8(3), 255–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, L., & Watkins, K. (1999). Action Research: Rethinking Lewin. Management Learning,30(2), 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for management research. British Journal of Management,7(1), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, M. (1972). An introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work organizations. Human Relations,25(6), 529–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grønhaug, K., & Olsson, O. (1999). Action research and knowledge creation: Merits and challenges. Qualitative Market Research,2(1), 6–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, F. (1993). Another look at action research. Human Relations,46(10), 1235–1242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M., & Hameri, A-P. (2009). Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences 40(1), 65–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hult, M., & Lennung, S. -Å. (1980). Towards a definition of action research: A note and bibliography. Journal of Management Studies,17(2), 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hüner, K. M., Ofner, M., & Otto, B. (2009). Towards a maturity model for corporate data quality management. 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (ACM SAC 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvinen, P. (2007). Action research is similar to design science. Quality & Quantity,41(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, F. (1997). A review on the use of action research in information systems studies. In A.S. Lee, J. Liebenau, J. I. DeGross (eds.), Information systems and qualitative research. IFIP — the international federation for information processing. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2009). Furthering distributed participative design. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 21, 77–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari, J., & Venable, J. (2009). Action research and design science research - Seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar. In 17th European Conference in Information Systems. ECIS, Verona, pp. 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, Salvatore T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People,14(1), 46–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2011). Useful research: Advancing theory and practice. Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. 2008. The Design Theory Nexus. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 731–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ractham, P., Kaewkitipong, L., & Firpo, D. (2012). The use of facebook in an introductory MIS course: Social constructivist learning environment*. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education,10(2), 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations,23(6), 499–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, M., & Sein, M. K. (2003). Design Research workshop: A proactive Research Approach. 26th Information Systems Seminar. Haikko, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (2010). Organization development: Science, technology or philosophy?. In D. Coghlan, & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Fundamentals of organization development (1) (pp. 91–100). London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shani, A. B., & Coghlan, D. (2019). Action research in business and management: A reflective review. Action Research, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shani, A., & Pasmore, W. (1982). Towards a New Model of the Action Research Process. Academy of Management Proceedings, August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiollent, M. (2009). Metodologia da Pesquisa-Ação (17th ed.). Cortez.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Kroch, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2021). Action Research Design. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-34356-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-34357-6

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics