Is action research the way forward for professionals facing real workplace

problems?
A discussion of the relative merits of action research and an evaluation of its
relevance to career education and guidance practice.

Action research is often credited to the work of Lewin (1946) and, with his linked
concepts of group dynamics, field theory and his change model, action research went
on to become central to the organisation development tradition in the sixties and
seventies (Bradford and Burke 2005). Lewin found that for effective change to take
place, the group was the key element to address. Whilst measures could promote
change within individuals, when the individuals were again operating within their
groups, they would be likely to defer to the existing group norms. Lewin’s work
formed the cornerstone of much early work on change management (Schein 1999).
Action research has also been adopted in a range of professional and managerial
training, for example teaching, health, social work, youth work, management,
community and international development (Coghlan and Brannick 2005).

After some sixty years of evolution, with periods of lesser and greater interest, action
research is a broad church (Reason and Bradbury 2005), with no one, over-arching,
common definition. Recent action research typologies include Chandler and Torbert
(2003) and Cassell and Johnson (2006). Definitions range from the fourteen specific
criteria of Eden and Huxham (1996), through to the more general (e.g. McNiff and
Whitehead (2006), Stringer (2007) which cover the essence of action research;
people working together on an issue of concern to them in an iterative, cyclical
pattern of action and reflection. This complexity of definition and diversity of
application are key characteristics of current action research.

One typology that seems relatively widely used is whether action research is
primarily first, second or third person action research. First person action research
focuses primarily on the development of the researcher’s understanding of
fundamental aspects of their personal practice and assumptions about their
relationship with the world. Some of the existing research relates to a range of
professions including CEG.

Second person action research relates to research primarily with a group (or groups)
on issues of mutual concern. This too seems highly applicable to the work of CEG
practitioners (e.g. on project groups) seeking to address particular topics of service
delivery. I have been involved with this type of action research as part of my work.
Third person action research involves working primarily with a wider community,
which could be relevant to those careers services involved in providing volunteering
opportunities to their clients. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories
(e.g. work which is primarily second person may include first person elements).

Another type of action research which seems particularly relevant to CEG practice is
Internal Action Research; here a researcher will conduct action research within their
own organisation. Coghlan and Brannick (2005) note that many professional and
managerial qualifications across a range of disciplines include an internal action
research project or dissertation as part of their programme. This is particularly
prevalent where part-time students carry out research with their employer’s
organisation, and the career guidance qualifications and courses are often centred on
such an activity. They also note that these studies often produce particularly rich
insights into how organisations really work and that it is a pity the great majority do
not see significant dissemination.

Page 1 Aminder K Nijar

Considering the practicalities of action research, the main premise is that whilst
conducting the research, the researcher continually implements what they learn
through their research into their work and vice versa. Often action research projects
can be: small in scale and focused on solving a specific issue within a specific
context; aim to bring about improvements and/or better understanding of the issue;
involves ongoing diagnosis, action and evaluation in relation the issue; and has a
cyclical process in that throughout the research, the researcher reflects on the issue,
thinks about possibilities, takes action, reviews progress, evaluates the effects and
repeats this process (e.g. McNiff and Whitehead 2006, Stringer 2007). Another key
feature of action research is that it is collaborative in nature, research is conducted
with people rather than on them. It asserts that because the issue it is addressing
usually involves a number of people and action research is about making
improvements, these people who are participants, can and often do contribute to the
research and therefore can be called ‘researchers’. This illustrates how action
research is significantly different to more traditional research methods, particularly
those from the more ‘scientific’ positivist paradigm (see below).

As a result, action research lends itself to the work of professionals and practitioners,
it gives them a flexible, naturalistic methodology (Coghlan and Brannick 2005) with
which to explore and address issues that concern them. It can produce ‘practical’
knowledge which can have a direct impact on their work.

Perceived merits of action research include how it: is about bringing about
positive change (Reason and Bradbury 2005); is inclusive rather than for only
the ‘experts’ as anyone can be a researcher within this method (McNiff and
Whitehead 2006); achieves rich insights into how organisations and
professions actually work (Coghlan and Brannick 2005);can address both
academic and practitioner audiences (e.g. Stringer 2007); generates data-
driven, localised theories which can be explored further; a flexible meta-
methodology (which can incorporate and draw on other approaches as part of
the research process e.g. ethnography, quantitative data); and has strong links
to social construction.
In terms of professional practice, the strengths of action research include: that it
seems to be a logical way of conducting research in that it takes a pragmatic
approach and is highly applicable to real issues (McNiff and Whitehead 2006, Stringer
2007); it focuses on action and resolving issues vital in the work context rather than
academic concerns regarding classifying and demonstrating cause and effect.

From my own personal experience of action research and from discussions with other
action researchers, I believe action research can lead immediately and directly to real
changes in practice; through the cycles of action, reflection and reframing there is a
natural link to other professional concepts (e.g. the learning cycle, “plan, do, review”,
reflective practice (Schon 1983)); action research can leverage influence through
groups (e.g. synergy, support, thorough planning due to consideration of multiple
perspectives, especially through second person action research); it is very good for
creating ‘ownership’ and leading to ‘real’ change where other, more directive efforts
may fail (e.g. Beer, Eisenstat and Spector (1990)); it also provides a participatory
approach, humanistic values and potential for emancipatory work (Carr and Kemmis
1986) which can be a good fit for espoused values and ideals of some professions,
including CEG.

However, while action research has a range of positive qualities, it has been subject
to extensive critique. These are now going to be considered under two broad themes.
First the charge that action research is not ‘proper’ research and its deviance from

Page 2 Aminder K Nijar

more traditional scientific method means it is not really academic’ research, followed
by an exploration of the criticisms of action research in practice.

Critics believe there are fundamental flaws in action research. For example, it’s lack
of robustness in positivist terms (Cohen and Manion 1980); how its samples are
biased and restricted; having control groups is very difficult; controlling independent
variables is highly improbable (Merriam and Simpson 1984); generalising its findings
to other situations or contexts is problematic because of its highly specific nature;
generally it does not contribute to the mainstream academic body of knowledge.
Clearly action research does not fit with the positivist ideal within physical science
type laboratory experiments. Using this as a frame of reference action research does
not meet their thresholds for ‘proper’ research.

This is an interesting critique as Lewin and other pioneers in action research were
prominent academics in the social and behavioural sciences, contributing many of
the core theories underpinning work in their respective fields. They were often
looking for how they could employ their academic expertise to solve real-world
problems in the consulting assignments they undertook.

There is a wider debate too around this issue, revolving around the contested ground
over who decides what knowledge is ‘right’ and who controls and creates this. Whilst
the positivist paradigm has reigned supreme throughout most of action research’s
existence, the positivist approach has been increasingly questioned by newer
perspectives (e.g. postmodernism, feminism, critical perspective).

Action researchers acknowledge the particular characteristics of their approach. For

some there seems to have been an ongoing battle to establish and defend the value
of their work. Greenwood (2007) has gone so far as to ask whether the battle can
ever be won and that almost by definition, the influence of action research may
ultimately be limited when operating as a minority interest in traditional hierarchical
organisations and power structures.

However, recent developments seem to see action research taking tentative steps in
a new direction to assert its validity and value. Previously, whilst advocating its value
writers (e.g. Dick 2002, Zuber-Skerritt and Perry 2002) would be somewhat
cautionary when describing issues action researchers may face when seeking to
submit their work to the academy. Within five years though others (e.g. Fisher and
Phelps 2006, Burgess 2006, Davis 2007) are now advocating a bolder approach,
celebrating the unique contribution action research has to offer, rather than seeking
to justify its validity. Fisher and Phelps (2006), for example, whilst still accepting their
approach will not be welcomed by all do believe their views are in line with wider
developments in the arts and social sciences.

For me, there is another issue in this debate. A gap seems to have developed
between concerns of academics and practitioners. Dick (2002) cites surveys where
managers felt theories taught in business schools had no impact on actual
management practice, beyond accreditation serving as a gateway to career
progression. Austin and Bartunek (2006) also note this gap and the fundamental
difference in concerns (e.g. academics may like typologies, cause and effect etc,
practitioners may like new tools and techniques). Action research has the potential to
speak to both audiences (e.g. Stringer 2007), though Foster (1972) noted the danger
when action research becomes either action with little research or research with little
action.

Action research can also have difficulties in practical implementation. For example
whilst people may wish to address a particular issue, they may ultimately not have

Page 3 Aminder K Nijar

the ability to do so (McNiff and Whitehead 2006). This can link to political factors and
power relations in organisations, for example, managers may not ultimately allow
practitioners to make changes they develop (Coghlan and Brannick 2005). From
personal experience I have also found action research can be relatively time
intensive and managers may not be willing to free up this resource. Similarly I have
encountered power struggles between action research groups and the management
hierarchy, which has led to attempts by managers to subvert the group (e.g. planting
allies). However, as Coghlan and Brannick (2005) argue, these types of issue are
prevalent in the workplace and the reality of many practitioners and managers.
Learning to manage these ‘messy’ issues is an important part of professional
development. Similarly action research needs an element of genuineness to be
implemented successfully. Its participatory approach and humanistic values can
make it seem like a simple panacea, but as Etmanski and Pant (2007) note, when it is
imposed as a methodological prerequisite, perhaps without a proper understanding
or commitment, potential benefits are unlikely to be realised.

Action research embraces a range of practice and approaches. As noted above it has
strengths and weaknesses on both academic and practical dimensions. Within career
education and guidance, practitioners engage in a range of activities which could
readily lend themselves to a first or second person action research approach: there
is a vast amount of work that has and continues to take place around improving
professional practice, such as the development or refinement of quality standards;
better understanding of situations, such as building relationships with teachers and
lecturers to develop career education; improve management of services through
regular management training courses and networking events; innovation such as
through the use of Web 2.0 tools in career guidance.

I believe action research has the potential to be a significant methodology for CEG
practitioners. It has been in the development of other related professions (e.g.
teaching). I believe it would offer practitioners and careers services a flexible
methodology which would be able to address issues in everyday practice. It also
seems likely that managers are more likely to support research which has a clear link
to action and the resolution of issues, rather than more abstract concepts. I add the
caveat that there would need to be a process of education before implementation
and some skill required in its introduction (e.g. in relation to boundaries in projects). I
would encourage more CEG practitioners to explore the potential of action research.
In 2010, I will be conducting some research using action research methodology,
which will feed into this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Are there projects you are (or have been) involved in that you think could be termed
‘action research’?

Page 4 Aminder K Nijar

References

Austin, J R, Bartunek, J M, (2006), Theories and Practices of Organisational

Development. In J V Gallos, (ed.), Organization Development, San Francisco, Jossey-
Bass.

Beer, M, Eisenstat, R, Spector, B, (1990), Why Change Programmes Don’t Produce

Change, Harvard Business Review.

Bradford, D L, Burke, W W, (2005), Reinventing Organization Development, San

Francisco, Pfeiffer.

Burgess, J, (2006), Participatory Action Research - First person perspectives of a

graduate student, Action Research, vol. 4, no. 4, pp419-437.

Carr, W, Kemmis, S, (1986), Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action

Research, Deakin University Press, Geelong.

Cassell. C, Johnson, P, (2006), Action Research: Explaining the Diversity, Human

Relations, vol. 59, no. 6, pp783-814.

Chandler, D, Torbert, B, (2003), Transforming Inquiry and Action: Interweaving 27

Flavors of Action Research, Action Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp133-152.

Coghlan, D, Brannick, T, (2005), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization,

London, Sage.

Cohen, L, Manion, L, (1980), Research methods in Education (2nd ed.), Dover NH,
Croom Helm.

Davis, J M, (2007), Rethinking the Architecture - An action researcher's resolution to

writing and presenting their thesis, Action Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp181-198.

Dick, B, (2002), Postgraduate Programmes Using Action Research, The Learning

Organisation, vol.9, no. 4, pp159-170.

Eden, C, Huxham, C, (1996), Action Research for the Study of Organizations. In S R

Clegg, C Hardy & W R Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, London, Sage.

Etmanski, C, Pant, M, (2007), Teaching Participatory Action Research Through

Reflexivity and Relationship: Reflections on an International Collaborative Curriculum
Project Between the Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) and the
University of Victoria (UVic), Action Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp275-292.

Fisher, K, Phelps, R, (2006), Recipe of Performing Art, Action Research, vol. 4, no. 2,
pp143-164.

Foster, M, (1972), An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Action Research in

Work Organizations, Human Relations, vol. 25, no. 6, pp529-556.

Greenwood, D J, (2007), Teaching/Learning Action Research Requires Fundamental

Reform in Public Higher Education, Action Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp249-264.

Lewin, K, (1946), Action Research in Minority Problems. In GW Lewin (ed.), Resolving

Social Conflict, London, Harper & Row.

McNiff, J, Whitehead, J, (2006), All You Need to Know About Action Research, London,
Sage.

Page 5 Aminder K Nijar

Merriam, S, Simpson, E, (1984), A Guide to Research for Adult Educators and
Trainers, Malamar FL, Krieger.

Reason, P, Bradbury, H, (2005), Handbook of Action Research, London, Sage.

Schein, E H, (1999), Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory in the Field and in the Classroom:
Notes Towards a Model of Managed Learning, Reflections, vol. 1, no. 1, pp59-74.

Schon, D, (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New
York, Basic Books.

Stringer, E T, (2007), Action Research, Third Edition, London, Sage.

Zuber-Skerritt, O, Perry, C, (2002), Action Research within Organisations and

University Thesis Writing, The Learning Organisation, vol. 9, no. 4, pp171-179.

Page 6 Aminder K Nijar