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. As the name suggests, action research is a methodology which has the dual aims of action and research 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. 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. 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.
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 You may wonder, then, why it is not more common. 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 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. 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 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 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.
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. In some settings that is too high a price to pay. 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. Perhaps you are discouraged by now. 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 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.
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. 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 , 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.
You can expect to have to tailor it to the research situation. 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: The most effective way of doing this, I believe, is to follow two guidelines 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.
The question arises from the study. This is the most important reason for choosing action research: Use more conventional research methods. As it happens, one of the key principles of action research is: 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, For more background on this important topic you might read some of the material on multimethod research.
Any two or more sources of information can serve your purpose of creating a dialectic. Here are a few examples. I have described elsewhere a data-collection method, convergent interviewing Dick, b , 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 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, , 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 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 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.
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. 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, ; Kemmis and McTaggart, A second is action science as developed by Argyris and his colleagues for example Argyris, Putnam and Smith, The fourth, evaluation, is itself a large family of methodologies.
I draw to some extent on the work of Patton for example, and Snyder personal communication. I do not assume that the developers of these methodologies would necessarily agree with my summary of them. 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 , McKernan , and Winter Each of these is written from a different perspective. A number of works which use the Deakin model provide useful reading.
Kemmis is one. Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt a, b has recently published two books in this tradition. You may also want to supplement your reading from works on qualitative research generally. Marshall and Rossman is a good starting point. Whyte 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.
When it comes to justifying your use of action research, I think the first half of Checkland 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, In his keynote address to the Action Learning Congress in Brisbane in he argued that a legitimate rigorous action research methodology requires an explicit methodological framework.
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 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 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 , This will help you distinguish the Deakin approach from some of its alternatives. In addition, McTaggart 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: 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 provide a description of the Deakin approach. Zuber-Skerritt a, b uses a similar framework. 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, His approach is in most respects consistent with that of the Deakin team.
Denham 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. 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.
They have been used in one action research thesis to my knowledge, Anderson The book deals primarily with the effects of intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics on social systems. The later book focuses more deliberately on system dynamics. Many people find this material hard to read. Argyris is easier to follow. People have told me that a book Tim Dalmau and I wrote Dick and Dalmau, sets out the concepts well.
Your understanding of the relevant system dynamics may be helped by Senge , who describes system functioning in terms of interaction cycles. The research methodology is most clearly described in Argyris, Putnam and Smith It is also worth browsing through Argyris , which was written for consultants. This is an action research project and action implies intervention. 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. 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. 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 is a non-numerical systems approach to diagnosis and intervention. Descriptions have been provided by Checkland , , Checkland and Scholes , Davies and Ledington , and Patching The book by Davies and Ledington is a good starting point.
It also has the advantage that both authors are now in Brisbane. He provides a complementary description, as he writes as a practitioner.
The other writers are academics. Jackson 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. The diagram may make this clearer. It is typical for each cycle in soft systems methodology to take place several times.
A better understanding develops through these iterations. 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 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. Soft systems methodology is well suited to the analysis of information systems. For an example of a dissertation using it in agriculture see van Beek Reville 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: 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, to those which are explicitly and deliberately anti-positivist such as Guba and Lincoln, 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 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, 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. Formulating theories, developing methods, planning experiments to test your or someone else's theory can be very engaging.
What is one disadvantage of doing research on the internet? If you get info from books or from various other printed sources in the library, you can guarantee that it is of a high standard and peer reviewed. There is lots of very useful academic info on the net, but you have to be careful. Generally if you get it from a. If you're at university, ask them about Athens: Never cite Wikipedia in your work.
Wiki is useful, but make sure you varify it elsewhere and do not cite Wiki in your reference. One of the Internet advantages as research tool is that we can have immediate access to a considerable amount of information with reference to a particular topic. Search engines, for example, are able to retrieve in a few seconds a list of websites ranked according to their relevance to that particular subject.
But relevance is practically the only parameter considered by search engines. This means that selecting what information is useful and which not can be time-consuming and often non-productive without an attentive screening. The disadvantage of the information on the Internet is that its reliability can be really uncertain. Inexpert people might confuse an high relevance of a source with its reliability.
Actually 'relevance is no more a mark of reliability than being a frequently borrowed book in a library is a mark of its reliability'. Judging reliability is crucial in order to take advantage of one of the strength of the Internet, which is the diversity of the information. What are advantages and disadvantages of experimental research?
An advantage is the researcher can determine the cause andeffect of a study. A disadvantage is that the manipulator must beprecise in their experiments, and extra variable that is notplanned for may scrub the entire study. What are the advantages and disadvantages of marketing research? Marketing research , according to my old tutor, is part of the process of designing the product to better suit the customer. As such it should have few disadvantages to the supplier. It is not Edsel excepted the process of trying to sell a product you've already designed.
What are the disadvantages of basic research? It is time consuming and costly. It based on theoretical aspect, but without practical no idea is perfect. Advantages and disadvantages of research research design? The advantages of many research designs include simple structuresand flexibility. Disadvantages include the lack of shown causation,instrument reactivity, and the placebo effect.
What are disadvantages of the Internet for research? The disadvantages of using the internet for reserch, is that, what you read on the internet my not be factually correct.
Advantage and disadvantage of marketing research? Advantages and disadvantages of basic research? One of the advantages of basic research is the wide view of thesubject that it covers. Since it is not applied research, you areable to venture out more into different areas. One of thedisadvantages of this type or researchbnb is that you never get todelve too deeply into a specific point.
What is action research in organizational development? Wendell L French and Cecil Bell define organization development OD at one point as "organization improvement through action research". Concerned with social change and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, Lewin believed that the motivation to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. Systems Model of Action-Research Process Lewin's description of the process of change involves three steps : Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware of a need to change.
The situation is diagnosed and new models of behavior are explored and tested. Application of new behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted. Figure 1 summarizes the steps and processes involved in planned change through action research.
Action research is depicted as a cyclical process of change. The cycle begins with a series of planning actions initiated by the client and the change agent working together. The principal elements of this stage include a preliminary diagnosis, data gathering, feedback of results, and joint action planning. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in which the client system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need outside help to effect changes, and shares with the consultant the process of problem diagnosis.
The second stage of action research is the action, or transformation, phase. This stage includes actions relating to learning processes perhaps in the form of role analysis and to planning and executing behavioral changes in the client organization. As shown in Figure 1, feedback at this stage would move via Feedback Loop A and would have the effect of altering previous planning to bring the learning activities of the client system into better alignment with change objectives.
Included in this stage is action-planning activity carried out jointly by the consultant and members of the client system.
Following the workshop or learning sessions, these action steps are carried out on the job as part of the transformation stage. This stage includes actual changes in behavior if any resulting from corrective action steps taken following the second stage. Data are again gathered from the client system so that progress can be determined and necessary adjustments in learning activities can be made. Minor adjustments of this nature can be made in learning activities via Feedback Loop B see Figure 1.
Major adjustments and reevaluations would return the OD project to the first, or planning, stage for basic changes in the program. The action-research model shown in Figure 1 closely follows Lewin's repetitive cycle of planning, action, and measuring results. It also illustrates other aspects of Lewin's general model of change.
As indicated in the diagram, the planning stage is a period of unfreezing, or problem awareness. There is inevitable overlap between the stages, since the boundaries are not clear-cut and cannot be in a continuous process.
The results stage is a period of refreezing, in which new behaviors are tried out on the job and, if successful and reinforcing, become a part of the system's repertoire of problem-solving behavior. Action research is problem centered, client centered, and action oriented. It involves the client system in a diagnostic, active-learning, problem-finding, and problem-solving process. Data are not simply returned in the form of a written report but instead are fed back in open joint sessions, and the client and the change agent collaborate in identifying and ranking specific problems, in devising methods for finding their real causes, and in developing plans for coping with them realistically and practically.
Scientific method in the form of data gathering, forming hypotheses, testing hypotheses, and measuring results, although not pursued as rigorously as in the laboratory, is nevertheless an integral part of the process.
Action research also sets in motion a long-range, cyclical, self-correcting mechanism for maintaining and enhancing the effectiveness of the client's system by leaving the system with practical and useful tools for self-analysis and self-renewal. What are the disadvantages of carrying out market research? Disadvantage of using market research is that it will cost a lot as it will be expensive to carry out, purchasing paper so it could be used to print the questionnaire on then this could cost.
The market research could be invalid as it may be out of date and not relevant. What are the advantages and disadvantages of internal research? Working with research firms requires somewhat rigid guidelines and research requirements. Companies using an internal marketing research department obtain built-in agility to modify research during the course of the investigation.
Internal marketing teams can also move at the pace set by business needs.. Expenses Hiring external firms for marketing research may be more expensive than using corporate employees. Costs, expenses and resources can be tightly monitored and controlled when an in-house staff conducts investigations.. Customization Internal employees tap product, development and support staff for in-depth product knowledge, questions and advice. I believe that for PAR research to have an impact the research needs to be on a larger scale.
That researcher would benefit from using both quantitative and qualitative methods of research. By using quantitative methods statistical analysis the researcher can reach larger numbers of the group. That as results considered more scientific by positivists results may have an impact to bring about social change.
To gain a deeper understanding of their lives. Social Researcher needs to have a representative group if the research findings are to be considered validated. For my own research I as yet do not have a research question however for my own professional practice I am considering a more humanistic approach when I could carry out an evaluative enquiry.
You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Posted on October 29, by crow Con There is a risk that for the practitioner who decides to evaluate his own practice. Ethical Dilemma For the practitioner who has been asked by either the work colleague or institution to evaluate the practice of another work colleague.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Grant on Are Realists Idealistic and Id….
ADVANTAGES: •Generalist and project staff •The choice of methods and techniques •The out comes of Action Research. •Study as you are implementing •Concurrent - be part of action •Produces new behaviour which helps in project growth. DISADVANTAGES: •Rarely gives .
Advantages of action research It can be done by an individual or a group It improves educational practice and helps create better professionals Educators can develop ways to improve their craft The researchers identify the problems systematically It can lead to the development of 5/5(1).
Transcript of The advantages and disadvantages of action research. 1. Action research as a purpose to. 2. Research so that they are more. 3. Action research may utilize any of the research methods and may involve collaboration with colleagues, clients, or professional researchers. 4. Hobson also recommends that teacher researchers keep a journal, a" written record. Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates. Get Started.
Action Research Advantages of Action Research. Possibility to gain in-depth knowledge about the problem. Disadvantages of Action Research. It is important to make a clear distinction between action research Action Research Spiral. Kemmis and McTaggart () do acknowledge that individual stages specified in Action. Oct 29, · Kurt Lewin was the social scientist responsible for giving this research paradigm the name Action Research. He believed Action Research went through a circular process. That the researcher began by “identifying a general idea” this was followed by “fact finding, planning, action, evaluating, plan second action”. However new approaches will use Action Research as a.