1.
After reviewing the readings this week, I found a few points that helped me understand action research in greater detail.
When reviewing the Perry (Chad Perry & Ortun Zuber-Skerritt, 1992) article, I found Table 3 insightful as it breaks down the types of action research from technical, practical, and emancipatory. In addition, it is interesting to see how the facilitator’s role changes along with the relationship with the participants. Finally, in the article’s conclusion, the authors mention that action research could conflict with the bureaucracy of an organization which is a valid point as action research might provide insight, but an organization may not be able to or want to change.
The McIntyre (McIntyre, 2007) article felt like a mystery novel, but I must admit it brought the idea of action research to light in terms of the approach along with the required participation. However, I was disappointed in the final set of findings, given the lack of support the researcher received from government officials. This goes back to my earlier point about action research not being able to make change unless the business or the community wants to change.
The third important point was the application of mixed methods in Action Research. The Sendall (Sendall et al., 2018) article demonstrated this in the healthcare industry, which proved to be a significant challenge. While I see the value of such a research design, especially in health care, potential personality issues among the researchers seemed to cause significant problems. My takeaway was that action research is similar to any other type of research – it comes down to the success of human interactions. As we have read, change can be difficult for some, which must be factored into each iteration of the process.
Regarding points that require further attention, the readings on the Action Research Model by Zentis were concise, and I am not sure why it is on the reading list. On the other hand, I spent some time at the Institute of Organization Development website and saw other excellent readings on the topic.
The glossary to the short guide on action research presented a nice collection of terms that can be used when writing up the DSP. However, I was confused about some of the points in the article. We have not covered most topics, and I am curious why this was included in the readings. It seemed a bit out of place, and further information would be helpful here.
The last point I found confusing in the Module 4 readings was in the Perry (Chad Perry & Ortun Zuber-Skerritt, 1992) article, Table
2.
The author speaks to this table’s relationships between core and action research projects. It is an interesting visual, but not exactly sure why it is separated into two sections or if it matters. The discussion seems to reinforce the idea of planning, action, observation and reflection, which was my most important takeaway.
Thanks!
Jeff
References
Chad Perry, & Ortun Zuber-Skerritt. (1992). Action Research in Graduate Management Research Programs [Article].
Higher Education,
23(2), 195–208.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143646
McIntyre, A. (2007). Participatory Action Research [Book]. In
Participatory Action Research (Vol. 52). SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385679
Sendall, M. C., McCosker, L. K., Brodie, A., Hill, M., & Crane, P. (2018). Participatory action
research, mixed methods, and research teams: learning from philosophically juxtaposed methodologies for optimal research outcomes [Article].
BMC Medical Research Methodology,
18(1), 167–167.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0636-1
2.
The most significant ideas from the reading “Action research in graduate management research programs” are 1) action research is the appropriate and effective method for conducting research for professional practice and organizational learning; 2) qualitative difference between Masters and Ph.D. candidates, whether the action research is practical or emancipatory and the scope that action research required for each type of candidate; and 3) from “Implementing the action research model” by Dr. Nancy Zentis – three stages of action research.
I agree that action research is the appropriate method for conducting research for professional organizations because it aims to simultaneously look into and create solutions for an issue, usually in social sciences.
The qualitative difference between Masters’s and Ph.D. candidates is that case studies are used more for Ph.D. candidates – at least from my knowledge capacity. I find it relevant for this stage in my process to earn a Ph.D.
The OD approach to action research is similar to Mr. Bob Dick’s Action research and evaluation online, as a web-based program found in Session 1 (plan, act, observe, and reflect).
The two analytic techniques that should be further explored are the types of action research – technical, practical, and emancipatory; and key managerial attributes and competencies for different industries using action research. I want to understand better why all members of a workgroup for a study should be within that same organization. I agree that the participants should be of the same organization, but I want to know why those disagree.
The concept that is somewhat difficult to understand – applying to action research is from Carr and Kemmis (1986) commented that only emancipatory action research can unequivocally fulfill the minimal requirements for action research. I believe technical action research could also meet minimal needs due to its effectiveness and efficiency in professional practice and development.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986)
Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge, and Action
Research. Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria.
Dick, B. (2014, December 30).
Action research and evaluation online, as a web-
based program.
http://www.aral.com.au/areol/areolind.html
Perry, C., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in graduate management
research programs.
Higher Education, 23(2), 195-208.
Zentis, N., (2015, August 23).
Implementing the action research model. Institute of
Organizational Development.
https://instituteod.com/implementing-action-research-model/
3.
The readings provided details on many aspects of action research. Regarding the analysis of case study data, there were three main ideas: the issues surrounding how the data compares to other research methods, the impact of teamwork and agreement on the study, and the importance of reflection.
Action research differs from other research in many ways and places it into a unique position. Perry & Zuber-Skerritt (1992) references how the research gets integrated into the system and how there is a “soft boundary” in action research versus a “hard boundary” in traditional research. The differences in research methods lead to the data collection and analysis being different. In action research, the researcher can fully immerse themselves in the research and get involved in various aspects and collect and understand the data differently. McIntyre (2007) as well as Sendall et al. (2018) illustrate that there is no clear guidebook or reference on how to proceed with action research as there is with traditional research; this leads to good opportunities, as well as challenges.
Teamwork is another important aspect of action research. When deciding on many aspects of the research, collaboration with the participants and other researchers is key. Sendall et al. (2018) highlight the issues with tension on the research team and how to integrate the data, as well as making decisions on how to spend the time; they also bring up the issues with mixed-methods research and the issues regarding teamwork. Similarly, McIntyre (2007) gives insight into the conflicts determining action taken and understanding of data, as well as how the best course of action to be taken according to the data is too difficult or time-consuming to do, based on the abilities of the team.
Finally, reflection is a key item. McIntyre (2007) brings up the importance of looking at everything from the proper lens in reviewing what has taken place and next steps. Perry & Zuber-Skerritt (1992) also talk about reflection in the process and in the thesis as a whole as well. These final analyses are key in making use of the completed research.
The practical and emancipatory types of action research brought up by Perry & Zuber-Skerritt (1992) are items to be researched further as they relate to the analytical aspects. The facilitator’s role is of particular interest and how it relates to the analytical aspects would be something to delve into more.
One item which was harder to understand were the details given by Chevalier & Buckles (2013) regarding how action research is between science and human relations and the challenges between theory and technique. In other reading and general understanding, this hasn’t been as much of a challenge because action research is so context-driven. I understand where they are coming from on this, but am still left disagreeing with that to some extent and trying to fully realize their thoughts.
Chevalier, J. M., & Buckles, D. J. (2013).
Participatory action research: Theory and methods for
engaged inquiry. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203107386
McIntyre, A. (2007;2008;).
Participatory action research. SAGE Publications,
Incorporated.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385679
Perry, C., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in graduate management research
programs.
Higher Education, 23(2), 195.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143646
Sendall, M. C., McCosker, L. K., Brodie, A., Hill, M., & Crane, P. (2018). Participatory action
research, mixed methods, and research teams: Learning from philosophically juxtaposed
methodologies for optimal research outcomes.
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 167-167.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0636-1
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2016
). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research.
Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1132591
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
