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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002). The concept of action research. The Learning Organization,9(3), 125–131.
Bamberger, G. G. (2015). Lösungsorientierte Beratung. 5. Auflage. Weinheim: Beltz.
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.
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.
Baskerville, R., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research methods. European Journal of Information Systems,7(2), 90–107.
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.
Bunning, C. (1995). Placing action learning and action research in context. International Management Centre.
Cauchick, M. (2011). Metodologia de Pesquisa em Engenharia ee Produção e Gestão de Operações. (2nd ed.). Elsevier.
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (2005). Roles, politics and ethics in action research design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(6), 533–546.
Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Sein, M. K. (2005). Being proactive: Where action research meets design research. ICIS.
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.
Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2002). Action research for operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,22(2), 220–240.
Cunningham, J. B. (1993). Action research and organizational development. Praeger Publishers.
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.
Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal,14(1), 65–86.
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.
Dickens, L., & Watkins, K. (1999). Action Research: Rethinking Lewin. Management Learning,30(2), 127–140.
Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for management research. British Journal of Management,7(1), 75–86.
Foster, M. (1972). An introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work organizations. Human Relations,25(6), 529–556.
Grønhaug, K., & Olsson, O. (1999). Action research and knowledge creation: Merits and challenges. Qualitative Market Research,2(1), 6–14.
Heller, F. (1993). Another look at action research. Human Relations,46(10), 1235–1242.
Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M., & Hameri, A-P. (2009). Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences 40(1), 65–87.
Hult, M., & Lennung, S. -Å. (1980). Towards a definition of action research: A note and bibliography. Journal of Management Studies,17(2), 241–250.
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).
Järvinen, P. (2007). Action research is similar to design science. Quality & Quantity,41(1), 37–54.
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.
Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2009). Furthering distributed participative design. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 21, 77–106.
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.
March, Salvatore T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.
McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People,14(1), 46–59.
Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2011). Useful research: Advancing theory and practice. Berrett-Koehler.
Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. 2008. The Design Theory Nexus. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 731–755.
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.
Rapoport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations,23(6), 499–513.
Rossi, M., & Sein, M. K. (2003). Design Research workshop: A proactive Research Approach. 26th Information Systems Seminar. Haikko, Finland.
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.
Shani, A. B., & Coghlan, D. (2019). Action research in business and management: A reflective review. Action Research, 1–24.
Shani, A., & Pasmore, W. (1982). Towards a New Model of the Action Research Process. Academy of Management Proceedings, August.
Thiollent, M. (2009). Metodologia da Pesquisa-Ação (17th ed.). Cortez.
Von Kroch, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
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)