Course: LIS3005Y
Professor: Joan Cherry
Date: April 17, 1998
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
What is Action Research? 2
Definition 2
The Action Research Process 3
Principles of Action Research 5
When is Action Research used? 9
Situating Action Research in a Research Paradigm 9
Positivist Paradigm 9
Interpretive Paradigm 10
Paradigm of Praxis 11
Evolution of Action Research 11
Origins in late 1940s 11
Current Types of Action Research 13
Traditional Action Research 13
Contextural Action Research (Action Learning) 13
Radical Action Research 14
Educational Action Research 14
Action Research Tools 15
The Search Conference 15
Role of the Action Researcher 18
Ethical Considerations 19
Examples of an Action Research Project 21
Case Study 1 - Development of nature tourism in the Windward Islands 21
Action Research and Information Technology 23
Case Study 2 - Internet-based collaborative work groups in community health 24
Case Study 3 - Computer conferencing in a learning community 26
Commentary on the need for more research 28
Conclusion 28
"If you want it done right, you
may as well do it yourself." This aphorism may seem appropriate
if you are a picky housekeeper, but more and more people are beginning
to realize it can also apply to large corporations, community
development projects, and even national governments. Such entities
exist increasingly in an interdependent world, and are relying
on Action Research as a means of coming to grips with their constantly
changing and turbulent environments.
This paper will answer the question
"What is Action Research?", giving an overview of its
processes and principles, stating when it is appropriate to use,
and situating it within a praxis research paradigm. The evolution
of the approach will be described, including the various kinds
of action research being used today. The role of the action researcher
will be briefly mentioned, and some ethical considerations discussed.
The tools of the action researcher, particularly that of the
use of search conferences, will be explained. Finally three case
studies will be briefly described, two of which pertain to action
research projects involving information technology, a promising
area in which further research is required.
Action research is known by many other names, including participatory research, collaborative inquiry, emancipatory research, action learning, and contextural action research, but all are variations on a theme. Put simply, action research is "learning by doing" - a group of people identifies a problem, do something to resolve it, see how successful their efforts were, and, if not satisfied, try again. While this is the essence of the approach, there are other key attributes of action research that differentiate it from common problem-solving activities that we all engage in every day. A more succinct definition is,
"Action research...aims to contribute
both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic
situation and to further the goals of social science simultaneously.
Thus, there is a dual commitment in action research to study
a system and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system
in changing it in what is together regarded as a desirable direction.
Accomplishing this twin goal requires the active collaboration
of researcher and client, and thus it stresses the importance
of co-learning as a primary aspect of the research process."
What separates this type of research
from general professional practices, consulting, or daily problem-solving
is the emphasis on scientific study, which is to say the researcher
studies the problem systematically and ensures the intervention
is informed by theoretical considerations. Much of the researcher's
time is spent on refining the methodological tools to suit the
exigencies of the situation, and on collecting, analyzing, and
presenting data on an ongoing, cyclical basis.
Several attributes separate action research
from other types of research. Primary is its focus on turning
the people involved into researchers, too - people learn best,
and more willingly apply what they have learned, when they do
it themselves. It also has a social dimension - the research
takes place in real-world situations, and aims to solve real problems.
Finally, the initiating researcher, unlike in other disciplines,
makes no attempt to remain objective, but openly acknowledges
their bias to the other participants.
Stephen Kemmis has developed a simple model of the cyclical nature
of the typical action research process (Figure 1). Each cycle
has four steps: plan, act, observe, reflect.
Gerald Susman (1983) gives a somewhat
more elaborate listing. He distinguishes five phases to be conducted
within each research cycle (Figure 2). Initially, a problem is
identified and data is collected for a more detailed diagnosis.
This is followed by a collective postulation of several possible
solutions, from which a single plan of action emerges and is implemented.
Data on the results of the intervention are collected and analyzed,
and the findings are interpreted in light of how successful the
action has been. At this point, the problem is re-assessed and
the process begins another cycle. This process continues until
the problem is resolved.
What gives action research its unique
flavour is the set of principles that guide the research. Winter
(1989) provides a comprehensive overview of six key principles.
1) Reflexive critique
An account of a situation, such as notes,
transcripts or official documents, will make implicit claims to
be authoritative, i.e., it implies that it is factual and true.
Truth in a social setting, however, is relative to the teller.
The principle of reflective critique ensures people reflect on
issues and processes and make explicit the interpretations, biases,
assumptions and concerns upon which judgments are made. In this
way, practical accounts can give rise to theoretical considerations.
2) Dialectical critique
Reality, particularly social reality,
is consensually validated, which is to say it is shared through
language. Phenomena are conceptualized in dialogue, therefore
a dialectical critique is required to understand the set of relationships
both between the phenomenon and its context, and between the elements
constituting the phenomenon. The key elements to focus attention
on are those constituent elements that are unstable, or in opposition
to one another. These are the ones that are most likely to create
changes.
3) Collaborative Resource
Participants in an action research project
are co-researchers. The principle of collaborative resource presupposes
that each person's ideas are equally significant as potential
resources for creating interpretive categories of analysis, negotiated
among the participants. It strives to avoid the skewing of credibility
stemming from the prior status of an idea-holder. It especially
makes possible the insights gleaned from noting the contradictions
both between many viewpoints and within a single viewpoint.
4) Risk
The change process potentially threatens
all previously established ways of doing things, thus creating
psychic fears among the practitioners. One of the more prominent
fears comes from the risk to ego stemming from open discussion
of one's interpretations, ideas, and judgments. Initiators of
action research will use this principle to allay others' fears
and invite participation by pointing out that they, too, will
be subject to the same process, and that whatever the outcome,
learning will take place.
5) Plural Structure
The nature of the research embodies
a multiplicity of views, commentaries and critiques, leading to
multiple possible actions and interpretations. This plural structure
of inquiry requires a plural text for reporting. This means that
there will be many accounts made explicit, with commentaries on
their contradictions, and a range of options for action presented.
A report, therefore, acts as a support for ongoing discussion
among collaborators, rather than a final conclusion of fact.
6) Theory, Practice, Transformation
For action researchers, theory informs
practice, practice refines theory, in a continuous transformation.
In any setting, people's actions are based on implicitly held
assumptions, theories and hypotheses, and with every observed
result, theoretical knowledge is enhanced. The two are intertwined
aspects of a single change process. It is up to the researchers
to make explicit the theoretical justifications for the actions,
and to question the bases of those justifications. The ensuing
practical applications that follow are subjected to further analysis,
in a transformative cycle that continuously alternates emphasis
between theory and practice.
Action research is used in real situations,
rather than in contrived, experimental studies, since its primary
focus is on solving real problems. It can, however, be used by
social scientists for preliminary or pilot research, especially
when the situation is too ambiguous to frame a precise research
question. Mostly, though, in accordance with its principles,
it is chosen when circumstances require flexibility, the involvement
of the people in the research, or change must take place quickly
or holistically.
It is often the case that those who
apply this approach are practitioners who wish to improve understanding
of their practice, social change activists trying to mount an
action campaign, or, more likely, academics who have been invited
into an organization (or other domain) by decision-makers aware
of a problem requiring action research, but lacking the requisite
methodological knowledge to deal with it.
The main research paradigm for the past
several centuries has been that of Logical Positivism. This paradigm
is based on a number of principles, including: a belief in an
objective reality, knowledge of which is only gained from sense
data that can be directly experienced and verified between independent
observers. Phenomena are subject to natural laws that humans
discover in a logical manner through empirical testing, using
inductive and deductive hypotheses derived from a body of scientific
theory. Its methods rely heavily on quantitative measures, with
relationships among variables commonly shown by mathematical means.
Positivism, used in scientific and applied research, has been
considered by many to be the antithesis of the principles of action
research (Susman and Evered 1978, Winter 1989).
Over the last half century, a new research
paradigm has emerged in the social sciences to break out of the
constraints imposed by positivism. With its emphasis on the relationship
between socially-engendered concept formation and language, it
can be referred to as the Interpretive paradigm. Containing such
qualitative methodological approaches as phenomenology, ethnography,
and hermeneutics, it is characterized by a belief in a
socially constructed, subjectively-based reality, one that is
influenced by culture and history. Nonetheless it still retains
the ideals of researcher objectivity, and researcher as passive
collector and expert interpreter of data.
Though sharing a number of perspectives
with the interpretive paradigm, and making considerable use of
its related qualitative methodologies, there are some researchers
who feel that neither it nor the positivist paradigms are sufficient
epistemological structures under which to place action research
(Lather 1986, Morley 1991). Rather, a paradigm of Praxis is seen
as where the main affinities lie. Praxis, a term used by Aristotle,
is the art of acting upon the conditions one faces in order to
change them. It deals with the disciplines and activities predominant
in the ethical and political lives of people. Aristotle contrasted
this with Theoria - those sciences and activities that are concerned
with knowing for its own sake. Both are equally needed he thought.
That knowledge is derived from practice, and practice informed
by knowledge, in an ongoing process, is a cornerstone of action
research. Action researchers also reject the notion of researcher
neutrality, understanding that the most active researcher is often
one who has most at stake in resolving a problematic situation.
Kurt Lewin is generally considered the
'father' of action research. A German social and experimental
psychologist, and one of the founders of the Gestalt school, he
was concerned with social problems, and focused on participative
group processes for addressing conflict, crises, and change, generally
within organizations. Initially, he was associated with the Center
for Group Dynamics at MIT in Boston, but soon went on to establish
his own National Training Laboratories.
Lewin first coined the term 'action
research' in his 1946 paper "Action Research and Minority
Problems", characterizing Action Research as "a comparative
research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social
action and research leading to social action", using a process
of "a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle
of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the
action".
Eric Trist, another major contributor
to the field from that immediate post-war era, was a social psychiatrist
whose group at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London
engaged in applied social research, initially for the civil repatriation
of German prisoners of war. He and his colleagues tended to focus
more on large-scale, multi-organizational problems.
Both Lewin and Trist applied their research
to systemic change in and between organizations. They emphasized
direct professional - client collaboration and affirmed the role
of group relations as basis for problem-solving. Both were avid
proponents of the principle that decisions are best implemented
by those who help make them.
By the mid-1970s, the field had evolved,
revealing 4 main 'streams' that had emerged: traditional, contextural
(action learning), radical, and educational action research.
Traditional Action Research stemmed
from Lewin's work within organizations and encompasses the concepts
and practices of Field Theory, Group Dynamics, T-Groups, and the
Clinical Model. The growing importance of labour-management relations
led to the application of action research in the areas of Organization
Development, Quality of Working Life (QWL), Socio-technical systems
(e.g., Information Systems), and Organizational Democracy. This
traditional approach tends toward the conservative, generally
maintaining the status quo with regards to organizational power
structures.
Contextural Action Research, also sometimes referred to as Action
Learning, is an approach derived from Trist's work on relations
between organizations. It is contextural,
insofar as it entails reconstituting the structural relations
among actors in a social environment; domain-based, in that it
tries to involve all affected parties and stakeholders; holographic,
as each participant understands the working of the whole; and
it stresses that participants act as project designers and co-researchers.
The concept of organizational ecology, and the use of search
conferences come out of contextural action research, which is
more of a liberal philosophy, with social transformation occurring
by consensus and normative incrementalism
The Radical stream, which has its roots
in Marxian 'dialectical materialism' and the praxis orientations
of Antonio Gramsci, has a strong focus on emancipation and the
overcoming of power imbalances. Participatory Action Research,
often found in liberationist movements and international development
circles, and Feminist Action Research both strive for social transformation
via an advocacy process to strengthen peripheral groups in society.
A fourth stream, that of Educational
Action Research, has its foundations in the writings of Thomas
Dewey, the great American educational philosopher of the 1920s
and 30s, who believed that professional educators should become
involved in community problem-solving. Its practitioners, not
surprisingly, operate mainly out of educational institutions,
and focus on development of curriculum, professional development,
and applying learning in a social context. It is often the case
that university-based action researchers work with primary and
secondary school teachers and students on community projects.
Action Research is more of a holistic
approach to problem-solving, rather than a single method for collecting
and analyzing data. Thus, it allows for several different research
tools to be used as the project is conducted. These various methods,
which are generally common to the qualitative research paradigm,
include: keeping a research journal, document collection and analysis,
participant observation recordings, questionnaire surveys, structured
and unstructured interviews, and case studies.
Of all of the tools utilized by action
researchers, the one that has been developed exclusively to suit
the needs of the action research approach is that of the search
conference, initially developed by Eric Trist and Fred
Emery at the Tavistock Institute in 1959, and first implemented
for the merger of Bristol-Siddley Aircraft Engines in 1960.
The search conference format has seen widespread development since
that time, with variations on Trist and Emery's theme becoming
known under other names due to their promotion by individual academics
and consultants. These include Dannemiller-Tyson's Interactive
Strategic Planning, Marvin Weisbord's Future Search Conference,
Dick Axelrod's Conference Model Redesign, Harrison Owen's Open
Space, and ICA's Strategic Planning (Rouda 1995).
Search conferences also have been conducted for many different
circumstances and participants, including: decision-makers from
several countries visioning the "Future of Participative
Democracy in the Americas"; practitioners
and policymakers in the field of health promotion in Ontario taking
charge in an era of cutbacks; and Xerox employees sorting out
enterprise re-organization.
Eric Trist sums up the process quite
nicely -
"Searching...is carried out in
groups which are composed of the relevant stakeholders. The group
meets under social island conditions for 2-3 days, sometimes as
long as five. The opening sessions are concerned with elucidating
the factors operating in the wider contextual environment - those
producing the meta-problems and likely to affect the future.
The content is contributed entirely by the members. The staff
are facilitators only. Items are listed in the first instance
without criticism in the plenary session and displayed on flip
charts which surround the room. The material is discussed in
greater depth in small groups and the composite picture checked
out in plenary. The group next examines its own organizational
setting or settings against this wider background and then proceeds
to construct a picture of a desirable future. It is surprising
how much agreement there often is. Only when all this has been
done is consideration given to action steps..."
Figure 3 provides a schematic of a typical
search conference.
Paradigm of Praxis
Evolution of Action Research
Origins in late 1940s
Current Types of Action Research
Traditional Action Research
Contextural Action Research (Action
Learning)
Radical Action Research
Educational Action Research
Action Research Tools
The Search Conference
introductions, review objectives, outline process, introduce first stage
SCANNING THE ISSUE
reports from small groups, discuss directions, introduce second stage
DESIRED FUTURES
reports, review progress, introduction to third stage
OPTIONS FOR CHANGE
reports, define strategic tasks / actions, select key tasks, form task groups
TASK GROUP MEETINGS
Task Group reports, discuss future contacts, create new Advisory Group
Upon invitation into a domain, the outside
researcher's role is to implement the Action Research method in
such a manner as to produce a mutually agreeable outcome for all
participants, with the process being maintained by them afterwards.
To accomplish this, it may necessitate the adoption of many different
roles at various stages of the process, including those of
planner leader
catalyzer facilitator
teacher designer
listener observer
synthesizer reporter
The main role, however, is to nurture
local leaders to the point where they can take responsibility
for the process. This point is reached they understand the methods
and are able to carry on when the initiating researcher leaves.
In many Action Research situations,
the hired researcher's role is primarily to take the time to facilitate
dialogue and foster reflective analysis among the participants,
provide them with periodic reports, and write a final report when
the researcher's involvement has ended.
Because action research is carried out
in real-world circumstances, and involves close and open communication
among the people involved, the researchers must pay close attention
to ethical considerations in the conduct of their work. Richard
Winter (1996) lists a number of principles:
To this might be added several more
points:
To better illustrate how action research
can proceed, an example is in order. Like many action research
projects, it is situationally unique, but there are elements in
the methods used that can be used by other researchers in different
circumstances. The following is an account taken from the writings
of one of the researchers involved (Franklin 1994).
In 1991, an action research process
was initiated to explore how nature tourism could be instituted
on each of the four Windward Islands in the Caribbean - St. Lucia,
Grenada, Dominica, and St. Vincent. The government took the lead,
for environmental conservation, community-based development, and
national economic development purposes. Realizing that the consultation
process had to involve many stakeholders, including representatives
of several government ministries, environmental and heritage groups,
community organizations, women's and youth groups, farmers' cooperatives,
and private business, an action research approach was seen as
appropriate.
Two action researchers from York University
in Toronto, with prior experience in the region, were hired to
implement the project, with a majority of the funding coming from
the Canadian International Development Agency. Multi-stakeholder
national advisory councils were formed, and national project coordinators
selected as local project liaisons. Their first main task was
to organize a search conference on each island.
The search conferences took place, the
outcome of which was a set of recommendations and/or action plans
for the carrying out of a number of nature tourism-oriented sub-projects
at the local community level. At this point, extended advisory
groups were formed on several of the islands, and national awareness
activities and community sub-projects were implemented in some
cases.
To maintain the process, regional project
meetings were held, where project coordinators and key advisory
members shared experiences, conducted self-evaluations and developed
plans for maintaining the process (e.g., fundraising). One of
the more valuable tools for building a sense of community was
the use of a videocamera to create a documentary video of a local
project.
The outcomes varied. In St. Vincent
the research project was highly successful, with several viable
local developments instituted. Grenada and St. Lucia showed mixed
outcomes, and Dominica was the least successful, the process curtailed
by the government soon after the search conference took place.
The main difference in the outcomes, it was felt, was in the
willingness of the key government personnel to "let go"
and allow the process to be jointly controlled by all participants.
There is always a risk that this kind of research will empower
stakeholders, and change existing power relations, the threat
of which is too much for some decision-makers, but if given the
opportunity, there are many things that a collaborative group
of citizens can accomplish that might not be possible otherwise.
It is time now to turn to some further
examples in an area in need of more research, that of the use
of information technology as a potentially powerful adjunct to
action research processes.
In the past ten years or so, there has
been a marked increase in the number of organizations that are
making use of information technology and computer mediated communications.
This has led to a number of convergences between information
systems and action research. In some cases, it has been a matter
of managers of corporate networks employing action research techniques
to facilitate large-scale changes to their information systems.
In others, it has been a question of community-based action research
projects making use of computer communications to broaden participation.
Much of the action research carried
out over the past 40 years has been conducted in local settings
with the participants meeting face-to-face with "real-time"
dialogue. The emergence of the Internet has led to an explosion
of asynchronous and aspatial group communication
in the form of e-mail and computer conferences, and recently,
v-mail and video conferencing. While there have been numerous
attempts to use this new technology in assisting group learning,
both within organizations and among groups in the community [this
author has been involved with a dozen or more projects of this
kind in the nonprofit sector in Canada alone], there is a dearth
of published studies on the use of action research methods in
such projects Lau and Hayward (1997), in a recent review of the
literature, found that most research on group support systems
to date has been in short-term, experimental situations using
quantitative methods.. There are a few examples, though, of longitudinal
studies in naturalistic settings using qualitative methods; of
those that did use action research, none studied the use and effects
of communication systems in groups and organizations.
Lau and Hayward (1997) used an action
research approach in a study of their own to explore the structuration
of Internet-based collaborative work groups. Over a two year
period, the researchers participated as facilitators in three
action research cycles of problem-solving among approximately
15 instructors and project staff, and 25 health professionals
from various regions striving to make a transition to a more community-based
health program. The aim was to explore how Internet-based communications
would influence their evolution into a virtual collaborative workgroup.
The first phase was taken up with defining
expectations, providing the technology and developing the customized
workgroup system. Feedback from participants noted that shorter
and more spaced training sessions, with instructions more focused
on specific projects would have been more helpful. The next phase
saw the full deployment of the system, and the main lesson learned
was that the steepness of the learning curve was severely underestimated,
with frustrations only minimally satisfied by a great deal of
technical support provided by telephone. The final cycle saw
the stabilization of the system and the emergence of the virtual
groups
The researchers found that those who
used the system interactively were more likely to establish projects
that were collaborative in nature, and that the lack of high quality
information on community healthcare online was a drawback. The
participants reported learning a great deal from the initiative.
The interpretations of the study suggest
that role clarity, relationship building, information sharing,
resource support, and experiential learning are important aspects
in virtual group development. There was also a sense that more
research was needed on how group support systems can help groups
interact with their external environment, as well as on how to
enhance the process of learning by group members.
Comstock and Fox (1995) have written
about their experiences in integrating computer conferencing into
a learning community for mid-career working adults attending a
Graduate Management Program at Antioch University in Seattle.
From 1992 to 1995, the researchers and their students made use
of a dial-up computer conferencing system called Caucus to augment
learning outside of monthly classroom weekends. Their findings
relate to establishing boundaries to interaction, creating a caring
community, and building collaborative learning.
Boundary setting was a matter of both
defined membership, i.e., access to particular conferences, and
actual participation. The architecture of the online environment
was equated to that of a house, in which locked rooms allowed
for privacy, but hampered interaction. They suggest some software
design changes that would provide more cues and flexibility to
improve access and usage.
Relationships in a caring community
were fostered by caring talk, personal conversations and story
telling. Over time, expressions of personal concern for other
participants increased, exemplifying a more tightly-knit group.
Playful conversations of a personal nature also improved group
relations, as did stories of events in individuals' lives. These
processes provided the support and induced the trust needed to
sustain the more in-depth collaborative learning taking place.
Students were expected to use the system
for collaborative learning using three forms of conversation -
dialogue, discussion and critical reflection. Dialogues were
enjoined as a result of attempts to relate classroom lessons to
personal situations at work, with a better understanding provided
by multiple opinions. Discussions, distinguished by the goal
of making a group decision or taking an action, required a fair
degree of moderation, insofar as participants found it difficult
to reach closure. The process of reflecting critically on ideas
was also difficult - participants rarely took the time to analyze
postings, preferring a more immediate, and more superficial, conversational
style.
The authors conclude with four recommendations:
1) be clear about the purpose of the computer conference and expectations
for use; 2) develop incentives for widespread and continuous participation;
3) pay attention to affects of the software on the way the system
is used for learning; and 4) teach members of the community how
to translate face-to-face collaborative processes to the on-line
environment.
The characteristics of the new information
technologies, especially that of computer conferencing, to allow
group communications to take place outside of the bounds of time
and space have the potential to be well suited to action research.
Projects that traditionally have been limited to local, real-time
interactions, such as in the case of search conferences, now have
the possibility of being conducted online, with the promise of
larger-sized groups, more reflexivity, greater geographic reach,
and for a longer period of sustained interaction. The current
state of the software architecture, though, does not seem to be
sufficient to induce the focused collaboration required. Perhaps
this will remain the case until cyberspace becomes as elaborate
in contextual cues as our current socio-physical environment.
Whatever the eventual outcome of online developments, it is certain
that action research and information technologies will continue
to converge, and we must be prepared to use action research techniques
to better understand and utilize this convergence..
This paper has presented an overview
of action research as a methodological approach to solving social
problems. The principles and procedures of this type of research,
and epistemological underpinnings, were described, along with
the evolution of the practice. Details of a search conference
and other tools were given, as was an indication of the roles
and ethics involved in the research. The case studies gave concrete
examples of projects, particularly in the relatively new area
of social deployment of information technologies. Further action
research is needed to explore the potential for developing computer-mediated
communications in a way that will enhance human interactions.
Endnotes
Thomas Gilmore, Jim Krantz and Rafael Ramirez, "Action Based Modes of Inquiry and the Host-Researcher Relationship," Consultation 5.3 (Fall 1986): 161.
Dan MacIsaac, "An Introduction to Action Research," 1995, http://www.phy.nau.edu/~danmac/actionrsch.html (22/03/1998).
Gerald I. Susman, "Action Research: A Sociotechnical Systems Perspective," ed. G. Morgan (London: Sage Publications, 1983) 102.
Richard Winter, Learning From Experience: Principles and Practice in Action-Research (Philadelphia: The Falmer Press, 1989) 43-67.
Kurt Lewin, "Action Research and Minority Problems," Journal of Social Issues 2 (1946): 34-46.
IIRM, "International Institute for Natural, Environmental & Cultural Resources Management," 26/08 1997, http://www.nmsu.edu/~iirm/ (24/03/1998).
Ontario Prevention Clearinghouse, "Our Communities in a Global Economy: Under Siege and Taking Charge!" 03/06 1996, http://www.opc.on.ca/events/congressvii/index.html (22/3/1998).
Ronald E. Purser and Steven Cabana, "Mobilizing Large-Scale Strategic Change: An Application of the Search Conference Method at Xerox," 19/10 1996, http://www2.wi.net/~rpurser/qualp.txt (12/04/1998).
Eric Trist, "Referent Organizations and the Development of Inter-Organizational Domains," 39th Annual Convention of the Academy of Management (Atlanta, 9/8, 1979) 23-24.
ABL Group, Future Search Process Design (Toronto: York University, 1997).
Richard Winter, "Some Principles and Procedures for the Conduct of Action Research," in New Directions in Action Research, ed. Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt (London: Falmer Press, 1996) 16-17.
Beth Franklin, personal communication
- an account of the outcomes has not yet been published (Toronto/York
University, 10/2, 1998).
1. ABL Group. Future Search Process Design.
Toronto: York University, 1997.
2. Boog, Ben, et al. Theory and Practice
of Action Research - With Special Reference to the Netherlands.
Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilbury University Press, 1996.
3. Chisholm, Rupert, and Max Elden. "Features
of Emerging Action Research." Human Relations 46.2
(1993): 275-98.
4. Comstock, Don, and Sally Fox. "Computer
Conferencing in a Learning Community: Opportunities and Obstacles."
November 1995. http://www.seattleantioch.edu/VirtualAntioch/DRAFT7HT.HTM
(14/04/1998).
5. Elden, Max, and Rupert Chisholm. "Emerging
Varieties of Action Research: Introduction to the Special Issue."
Human Relations 46.2 (1993): 121-42.
6. Emery, Fred E., and Eric L. Trist. "The
Causal Texture of Organizational Environments." Human
Relations 18 (1965): 21-32.
7. Fals-Borda, Orlando. "Evolution
and Convergence in Participatory Action-Research." A
World of Communities: Participatory Research Perspectives.
Ed. James Frideres. Toronto: Captus University Publications,
1992. 14-19.
8. Franklin, Beth. . An accounting of the
outcomes has not yet been published. Toronto/York University,
10/2. 1998.
9. ---. "Grassroots Initiatives in
Sustainability: A Caribbean Example." Human Society &
The Natural World: Perspectives on Sustainable Futures. Ed.
D Bell and R. Keil. Toronto: York University, 1994. 1-10.
10. ---, and David Morley. "Contextural
Searching: An Application of Action Learning Principles."
Discovering Common Ground. Ed. M. Weisbord. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler, 1992. 229-46.
11. Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
New York: Continuum, 1970.
12. Gilmore, Thomas, Jim Krantz, and Rafael
Ramirez. "Action Based Modes of Inquiry and the Host-Researcher
Relationship." Consultation 5.3: 160-76.
13. Greenwood, Davydd, William Foote Whyte,
and Ira Harkavy. "Participatory Action Research as a Process
and as a Goal." Human Relations 46.2 (1993): 175-92.
14. Hall, Budd L. "From Margins to
Centre? The Development and Purpose of Participatory Research."
American Sociologist Winter 1992: 15-28.
15. Hollingsworth, Sandra (ed.). International
Action Research: A Casebook for Educational Reform. London:
The Falmer Press, 1997.
16. IIRM. "International Institute
for Natural, Environmental & Cultural Resources Management."
26/08 1997. http://www.nmsu.edu/~iirm/ (24/03/1998).
17. Jones, Sue. "Choosing Action Research."
Organizational Analysis and Development: A Social Construction
of Organizational Behaviour. Ed. Ian Mangham. John Wiley
& Sons Ltd., 1986. 23-45.
18. Kock Jr., Nereu F. "Myths in Organisational
Action Research: Reflections on a Study of Computer-Supported
Process Redesign Groups." Organizations & Society
4.9 (1997): 65-91.
19. Lather, Patti. "Research as Praxis."
Harvard Educational Review 56.3 (1986): 257-77.
20. Lau, Francis, and Robert Hayward. "Structuration
of Internet-Based Collaborative Work Groups Through Action Research."
2/5 1997. http://search.ahfmr.ab.ca/tech_eval/gss.htm (11/4/1998).
21. Lewin, Kurt. "Action Research and
Minority Problems." Journal of Social Issues 2 (1946):
34-46.
22. MacIsaac, Dan. "An Introduction
to Action Research." 1995. http://www.phy.nau.edu/~danmac/actionrsch.html
(22/03/1998).
23. Morgan, Gareth, and Raphael Ramirez.
"Action Learning: A Holographic Metaphor for Guiding Social
Change." Toronto, April. 1983. York University Action Learning
Group.
24. Morley, David. "Resource Analysis
as Action Research." Resource Analysis Research in Developing
Countries. Ed. Paul F. Wilkinson and William C. Found. Toronto:
York University, 1991. 1-16.
25. Ontario Prevention Clearinghouse. "Our
Communities in a Global Economy: Under Siege and Taking Charge!"
03/06 1996. http://www.opc.on.ca/events/congressvii/index.html
(22/3/1998).
26. Purser, Ronald E., and Steven Cabana.
"Mobilizing Large-Scale Strategic Change: An Application
of the Search Conference Method at Xerox." 19/10 1996.
http://www2.wi.net/~rpurser/qualp.txt (12/04/1998).
27. Revans, Reginald. The Origins and
Growth of Action Learning. Bromly, England: Chartwell Bratt,
1982.
28. Rouda, Robert H. "Background and
Theory for Large Scale Organizational Change Methods." 1995.
http://alumni.caltech.edu/~rouda/background.html (14/04/1998).
29. ---, and Mitchell E. Kusy Jr. "MANAGING
CHANGE WITH LARGE-SCALE, REAL-TIME INTERVENTIONS." 1995.
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~rouda/T5_LSRTOD.html (14/04/1998).
30. Susman, Gerald I. "Action Research:
A Sociotechnical Systems Perspective." Ed. G. Morgan. London:
Sage Publications, 1983. 95-113.
31. ---, and Roger D. Evered. "An Assessment
of the Scientific Merits of Action Research." Administrative
Science Quarterly 23 (December 1978): 582-603.
32. Tesch, Renata. Qualitative Research:
Analysis Types and Software Tools. New York: The Falmer Press,
1990.
33. Trist, Eric. "A Concept of Organizational
Ecology." Australian Journal of Management 2.2: 161-75.
34. ---. "Intervention Strategies for
Interorganizational Domains." Human Systems Development:
Perspectives on People and Organizations. Ed. Robert Tannenbaum
and et al. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985. 167-97.
35. ---. "New Directions of Hope."
Regional Studies 13 (1979): 439-51.
36. ---. "Referent Organizations and
the Development of Inter-Organizational Domains." 39th Annual
Convention of the Academy of Management. Atlanta, 9/8. 1979.
37. Weisbord, Marvin (ed.). Discovering
Common Ground: How Future Search Conferences Bring People Together
To Achieve Breakthrough Innovation, Empowerment, Shared Vision,
and Collaborative Action. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers,
Inc., 1992.
38. Winter, Richard. Action-Research
and the Nature of Social Inquiry: Professional Innovation and
Educational Work. Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing Company,
1987.
39. ---. Learning From Experience: Principles
and Practice in Action-Research. Philadelphia: The Falmer
Press, 1989.
40. ---. "Some Principles and Procedures
for the Conduct of Action Research." New Directions in
Action Research. Ed. Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt. London: Falmer
Press, 1996. 13-27.
41. Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun. New Directions
in Action Research. London: The Falmer Press, 1996.
Return to home page