The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7266.htm

DEBATE AND DISCUSSION Project

management
Project management and action
research: two sides of the same
519
coin?
Dean Whitehead
School of Health Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Abstract
Purpose – To put forward the, to date, unidentified viewpoint that organisational action research
and project management have many shared properties – making it a useful exercise to compare and
contrast them in relation to organisational management structures and strategies.
Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual exploration, drawing on a wide range of
supporting literature, is used here.
Findings – Project management represents a mainstay strategy for much of the organisational
research seen in health care management – and has done for many years. More recently, the
exploratory literature on project management has identified many limitations – especially when
matched against “traditional” examples. Many health services have witnessed a more recent
organisational management drive to seek out alternative strategies that incorporate less hierarchical
and more participatory research methods. Action research certainly fits this bill and, on further
examination, can be incorporated into a project management ethos and vice versa.
Research limitations/implications – The views expressed here are of a theoretical construct and
have not been implemented, as they are presented in this paper, in practice. The intention, however, is
to do so in some of the author’s future studies.
Practical implications – If the management of health service organisations are to evolve to
incorporate desirable structures that promote consumer-oriented empowerment and participation
(where the consumers also include the workforce), then having a wider array of research tools at one’s
disposal is one way of facilitating this. Incorporating action research principles into project
management approaches, or the other way round, or marrying them both to form a “hybrid” research
strategy – it is argued here – represents an appropriate and representative way forward for future
organisational management studies.
Originality/value – In terms of originality, this represents a conceptual piece of work that puts
forward constructs that have, to date, not featured in the health care literature. Its value lies in
suggesting further options for organisational-oriented health care research.
Keywords Action research, Project management, Organizational structures
Paper type Viewpoint

Introduction
The author of this paper recently initiated and completed a research study as part of a
UK National Health Service (NHS) South West Regional Office (SWRO)-commissioned
and funded project (NHS-SWRO, 2002, Whitehead et al., 2003). The study in question Journal of Health Organization and
adopted an organisational-change Participatory Action Research (PAR) design. One of Management
Vol. 19 No. 6, 2005
the research team had previously been involved in several project management (PM) pp. 519-531
studies and had highlighted possible similarities between the two mentioned q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1477-7266
approaches. The author of this paper decided to explore if any actual relationship DOI 10.1108/14777260510629715
JHOM existed. Further investigation of the literature that surrounded both action research
19,6 (AR) and project management (despite the fact that none of the literature directly
compares the two) revealed that a wide range of similarities existed. This set the author
on a quest to “marry” the two disciplines and put forward a case for managers and
researchers to consider adopting elements of both approaches for future service
delivery and organisational projects.
520
The new emphasis on organisational-change management research
Most of the health service reform context presented in this account details the UK
experience. This service reform, however, has not occurred within a vacuum and
therefore has emerged from and is indicative of health service reform in many other
countries. In the UK, recent NHS reform has dictated the need for different
management styles and the need to review the methods by which organisational
changes are planned, implemented and evaluated – what St Leger and Walsworth-Bell
(1999) refer to as a “new paradigm” for change-promoting health service research.
Hospitals, in particular, have been subjected to accelerating and systematic efforts to
alter the way that they approach organisational behaviour and change (McKee and
Healty, 2001). Effective organisational development and reform is essential if a
“healthy” organisation is to invest in embedded health cultures, structures and
mechanisms as part of the routine life of the institution and for the betterment of the
organisation.
In the government White Paper A First Class Service, the National Co-ordinating
Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation (NCCSDO) was charged with the
responsibility of reviewing the latest evidence in the field of change management
(Department of Health [DoH], 1998). This White Paper was closely followed by The
NHS Plan, which further stresses the need for a fundamental change in the way that
managers improve their services through their research activities (DoH, 2000). Out of
The NHS Plan the “NHS Modernisation Agency” was formed which, amongst many
programmes, has developed the Changing Workforce Programme. This programme is
designed to implement new ways of working to improve organisational services. The
NHS Modernisation Agency, in partnership with the United States-based “Institute for
Healthcare Improvement”, has also developed the Pursuing Perfection: Raising the Bar
in Healthcare initiative (Department of Health, 2002). This initiative aims to support
whole system organisational improvement through the rapid spread of learning,
innovation and the testing of new methods for achieving better services for everyone.
The NCCSDO has released its own document entitled Managing Change in the NHS.
Organisational Change: A Review for Health Care Managers, Professionals and
Researchers, with the aim of bridging the gap between organisational commitment to
change and direct action for change (NCCSDO, 2001). Of the several “most appropriate”
organisational-learning and organisational-change research approaches recommended
by the NCCSDO in their review document, action research and project management
both emerge strongly – but are put forward as distinct and separate methods.
Emerging health service management reform is making it clear that different styles
of managing research projects are necessary if organisations are to readily adhere to
rapidly changing consumer/user-based quality provision models. Health service
organisations are coming under increasing pressure to establish structures that
involve the beneficiaries (both employees and clients) in programme planning and
implementation. Fitzpatrick and White (2001) state that managerial control of the Project
organisational research agenda should be balanced against effective research management
partnership and participation between consumer groups and employees. Baguley
(1999) stresses the point that organisational-change strategies now have to present
themselves to the “outside world” – in effect, the project stakeholders. Consequently,
Jaafari and Manivong (2000) state that organisational reform is best served if it adopts
a proactive and holistic management style that establishes unique integrated teams – 521
where the focus of the team is shifted away from contractual conformity towards
findings the best solutions for projects. The adoption of a “consensus and consent”
style of management has become an overriding factor for health service managers.
Subsequently, Ovretveit (2000, p. 79) suggests that PM research frameworks need to
change from a controlling style of management to a facilitating and empowering role
that “enables people to use and develop their potential and awaken the hope and belief
that they can make things better.”
Those that question the intention, validity and outcomes of conventional
management research activity have also prompted a change of ethos for
management-based research projects. The literature now questions management
research frameworks that emphasise positivist methods in the name of scientific rigor
above all else and where the research activity has little direct impact on “real world”
organisations (Baker, 2000). A fresh outlook is being called for which prompts
managers of projects to look beyond the limitations of conventional strategies in order
that they embrace evolving perspectives. In turn, researchers are being advised to
adopt strategies that strive for a balance between rigor and relevance, while also
moving away from approaches that are bias towards research at the expense of action
and task at the expense of relationship (Marsick, 2002).

Action research
Action research (AR) is gaining a wider acceptance in the health service management
community. Badger (2000) suggests that the problem-focused approach of AR is
potentially attractive to all health service managers. According to recent health service
reforms, managers are beginning to appreciate the potential of “Action Inquiry”
processes as a valid approach for applied management research and are increasingly
undertaking AR projects in a variety of organisations (French and Bell, 1999;
Earl-Slater, 2002; Coghlan, 2001). AR has its roots in the fields of education and
industry-based organisational development but is emerging to serve the organisational
needs of health service sectors (Potter et al., 1994; Denscombe, 1998; Wilkinson et al.
1997; Earl-Slater, 2002; Whitehead et al., 2003). Consequently, recent examples can be
found in the literature although they are still few and far between (i.e. Waterson, 2000;
Harrison, 2000). Unfortunately AR has yet to gain widespread acceptance within the
health service management community, despite the fact that it works very well as a
facilitative and participatory method for implementing and evaluating organisational
reform. This is particularly ironic when one considers the plethora of organisational
AR studies employed by clinicians working in the health service sector (i.e. Hampshire,
2000; Meyer, 2000; Dopson et al., 2001; Cooper and Hewison, 2002; Livesey and
Challender, 2002; Whitehead et al., 2003).
Before moving on, it is necessary to describe the common processes that are employed
within the processes of action research. Figure 1 offers a schematic representation of a
JHOM
19,6

522

Figure 1.
An organisational-change
action research cycle
“typical” organisational-change AR strategy. Action research stresses the importance of Project
actively engaging its participants in the process of a democratising social inquiry. It
enjoys a collective ethos that actively encourages the shared learning of individuals and
management
teams who are able to learn across the boundaries of any organisation, as and when new
ideas and assumptions are presented to them (St Leger and Walsworth-Bell, 1999). As
such, AR involves the use of change-experiments with real people and their real
problems in their own social systems. It challenges existing organisational systems from 523
a collaborative and participative perspective alongside the requirements of effective
“re-education.” In effect, Developmental Action Research (DAR) focuses on the readiness
or developmental level of the organisational system and its members to take action and
make change (Dickens and Watkins, 1999).
Action research studies can essentially be divided into two broad categories - those
that employ a social/community empowerment strategy and those that employ an
organisational-change process. In terms of this paper the real interest lies with
examining the organisational-change processes. Within the organisational-change
category, Coghlan (2001) states that suitable AR subjects include organisational
learning, systems improvement and management of change. McNiff (2000, p. 253) feels
strongly that “organisations are people” and that a “learning organisation” is one that
encourages and supports an AR ethos amongst all individuals at all levels. She goes on
to suggest that managers bear the responsibility for implementing the type of AR
activity that creates a ripple effect for transforming organisations into “good societies”.
Hampshire (2000) believes that AR has already been used very successfully to facilitate
change and improve service provision in health care arenas, while Zuber-Skerritt (1996)
argues that AR represents “best practice” for achieving organisational change.

Project management
The purpose of project management is to predict as many organisational dilemmas as
is possible and therefore to plan, organise and control organisational activities to
ensure successful organisational-change projects (Lock, 2003). Investing in such
projects represents a strategy for reducing uncertainty and risk in the face of business
change, while satisfying the requirements of the project stakeholders. Reorientating
health services via the capacity-building processes of project management represents a
mainstay of health service planning and development (Yeatman and Nove, 2002). Bee
and Bee (1997, p. 3) identify that there are four essential characteristics of projects that
differentiate them from other organisational-change activities. They are:
(1) Goal-orientated activities with very specific objectives.
(2) Co-ordinated inter-related activities across functional barriers.
(3) Finite duration activities that have clearly defined start and end points.
(4) All unique.
Thus project management applies a project perspective to organisational change as an
overall approach to a defined change process. Its place as an organisational
change-management strategy is both well established and assured. Dooris and
Thompson (2001) highlight the fact that the most effective organisational development
is best instituted through the use of project management approaches that directly
involve the processes of change management, audit, knowledge and skills
development, policy development and quality evaluation. As such, a plethora of
JHOM literature is available that defines and takes the reader through these fundamental
19,6 process and steps of successful project management (PM) (i.e. Lenz, 1999; Baguley,
1999; Milliken, 2000; Spath, 2001; Carroll-Barefield and Smith, 2001; Hefner and
Malcolm, 2002; Cleland and Ireland, 2002; Lock, 2003).
Simplistically put, everyone manages projects from time to time (Haynes, 2002).
Mirroring this sentiment, however, Roberts and Ludvigsen (1998) suggest that project
524 management skills fall into the category of essential skills for many health care
workers. It is therefore no longer exclusively the domain of middle and senior
managers as was once the case. The future for PM, according to Cleland and Ireland
(2002) will see a larger focus on those that execute the projects, increased time spent
with all stakeholders as their influence increases, and increasing dissemination and
availability of information about projects.

The differences and similarities between action research and project

management
When initially comparing and contrasting action research and project management,
the relationship between the two may initially appear tenuous – especially with regard
to some notable differences between the approaches. For instance, on the surface, PM
can be viewed as a rigidly hierarchical process, while AR is notably associated with
processes of devolving hierarchy and producing equal partnership between all of its
participants. Viewed simply, one approach might be classified as a method of doing
with and the other doing to. One of the methods is rooted within a social sciences
framework while the other is placed within a positivist management science paradigm.
Furthermore, PM normally functions as an outcome-driven method while AR is more
concerned with process-focused drivers.
The “ideal” model of project management supports its claim to professionalism on
the basis of “the “correct” solution, entirely in keeping with the positivist doctrines of
technical rationality.” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 813). Hence Hodgson further stresses that PM
knowledge can epitomise a “technicist and instrumental” form of modernist rationality.
PM strategies that rigidly adhere to such frameworks cannot be compared to or
incorporated into action research approaches that fall within an emancipatory-critical
research paradigm. Therefore where management-based studies that exclusively
employ positivist experimental frameworks are used, the aim of action change and
improvement is only ever a secondary purpose. This is clearly not the case with action
research. This said, Bate (2000) has observed that the extension of the evidence-based
principle into management and organisational studies is where AR is most likely to be
a major beneficiary in future years.
Despite the above-stated sentiments regarding differences, the less simplistically
the two positions are viewed the less dichotomous the positions appear and the more
that the similarities emerge. For instance, at their very broadest level, both activities
share the goal of creating knowledge while attempting to uncover scientific discoveries
that also solve practical problems (Dickens and Watkins, 1999). As previously
suggested, the main similarity between action research and project management lies
with their attempts to initiate and develop organisational-change and reform. Meyer
(2000) states that the real strength of AR lies in its ability to positively influence
practice and gather data to disseminate to a wider audience while, similarly, PM
influences practice by putting in place “actions” to rectify organisational situations Project
(Dash, 2002). management
Organisational change is underpinned by the need to manage organisational
politics. Managers who engage in action research studies require a pre-understanding
of organisational politics and have to become “political entrepreneurs” in their
organisation (Buchanen and Badham, 1999) – as is the case with project management.
At the same time, the de-politicisation of organisational structures is fundamental to 525
the success of both PM and AR (Hodgson, 2002).
Another similarity is that the emergence and development of action research and
project management closely mirror each other. They emerge around about the same
time in the late 1940s/early 1950s. Project management was dominant in the fields of
industry and has spread more recently into other sectors such as health care (Hodgson,
2002). The same is true of action research. In Lewin’s (regarded as the founder of
modern-day action research) early career, AR began as a “researcher as expert”
ideology where the expert investigated issues at higher management level, devised
actions or experiments for testing, analysed the results and then produced a report
(Grbich, 1999). This type of approach would have quite closely mirrored the traditional
approach to PM. Over the last half a Century or so AR has evolved to become a
collaborative, empowering and participatory research method, usually involving those
at the lower level of the organisational hierarchy in the process of assessing and
implementing change between co-researchers. There has also been a similar transition,
although far more recently, for PM.
Project management is different to most other forms of management research
because it moves through a pre-determined life cycle. This Project Life Cycle (PLC) is
effectively the cornerstone of project management (Morris, 1997; Baguley, 1999;
Cleland and Ireland, 2002). Lock (2003), however, argues that a typical management
project rarely goes through a true cycle process, unless there is a return to the start and
subsequent regeneration – suggesting that the term “Project Life History” is used
instead. This is nearly always the case with AR strategies. Jaafari and Manivong (2000)
have developed the Life-Cycle Project Management (LCPM) model that stresses the
importance of employing proactive management “life-cycle objective functions” as the
basis for on-going planning and cyclic evaluation of management projects. Action
research too has a pre-determined cyclic process that it adheres to. Figure 1. shows the
cyclic nature of a typical organisational-change AR process. It can also be argued that
both approaches closely mirror elements of the “Plan, Do, Study, Act” (PDSA) cycle
evident within a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) model of organisational
change.

Mixing and matching action research and project management on the basis
of their similarities
When comparing and contrasting project management and action research
methodologies it does not necessarily boil down so much to similarities and
differences, but the researchers ability to adopt a broader mindset. An alternative
mindset would look to find the “best fit” for the job at hand through exploring a range of
purpose and methods. I suggest that the “right” mindset would note far more similarities
than differences when it comes to comparing these methodologies. Another useful stance
would see that organisational-change strategies are not about the exclusivity of any
JHOM single method over another but an appropriate exploration and implementation of a
19,6 variety and combination of methods. This helps to avoid the situation of conflict in
favour of consent and consensus. It also helps to strike a balance between bottom-up and
“centrally-initiated” initiatives. Green et al. (2001, p. 28) helpfully state that:
The key to participatory research lies not with any given method, but, rather in the attitudes
of researchers, which in turn affect how and for whom the research is constructed and
526 conducted.
Health services have had to become more diverse and entrepreneurial in their approach
to organisational problem-solving strategies and now aim to maximise the
effectiveness of their human resource strategies. This is because organisations do
not operate within a vacuum as they are context-bound and embedded in
ever-changing environments (Roberts and Ludvigsen, 1998; Gronhaug and Olson,
1999). With this in mind, it is essential that researchers investigate new ways to
implement effective organisational reform. How the management research community
view project management and action research essentially comes down to what it is that
the researcher/s ultimately want to achieve and how they wish to go about it.A
marrying of both project management and action research may help to combat the fact
that some believe that strategies that employ PM alone do not work on their own
(Smith, 1999; Dopson et al., 2001). Perhaps this why we have witnessed the recent
emergence of Developmental Action Inquiry (DAI), as a version of action science that
combines personal management development with creating a learning organisation
and increasing business performance (Porter, 2002). Bate (2000) has also noted that the
fashionable concept of the “learning” or “knowledge-creating” organisation has
accompanied the huge interest in organisational development and change
management. According to Bech (2001, p. 98), the best type of project management
and project leadership aims to “develop the best possible circumstances for project
participants to unfold their capabilities in favour of the project and their own growth”.
Whilst it would perhaps be going too far to suggest that this exactly mirrors the
emancipatory and empowering “co-researcher” participation that Participatory Action
Research (PAR) strategies set out to achieve, there are nevertheless similarities.
Consequently, Developmental Action Inquiry is seen by some as a version of “action
science” that bridges the gap between management research and action research
principles (Fisher et al., 2001; Porter, 2002). A word of warning though comes from
Gaventa and Cornwall (2001) who state that introducing participatory methods into
organisational research requires more than simply adding new tools to existing
methods, where the organisations themselves may be inflexible, hierarchical and
non-participatory. Instead it requires a fundamental review of the organisational
culture, learning, processes and incentives. In particular, organisational culture sets the
“tone” of an organisation, but is the most resistant and elusive factor in organisational
change management where team-building and participation are key in effectively
managing the organisation (Walter, 2001).
It is useful to acknowledge that action research frameworks are wide, varied and
flexible enough to adopt a number of paradigmatic positions:
. . . there is a spectrum of practitioner involvement in action research from
“technical/experimental” [positivist models], with the researchers having greater control, to
 “emancipatory/empowering”, with more emphasis on developing practitioners’ skills or Project
changing the social context in which the research is being done.” (Hampshire, 2000, p. 338).
management
The above quotation suggests that, as much as PM approaches can adapt to take on a
greater participatory stance, similarly AR approaches may sometimes adopt a
technical and positivist perspective. Heikkinen et al. (2001) also state that action
research can present a productive multi-paradigmatic situation regarded as a form of
positivistic social inquiry, in which social phenomena are also viewed as natural 527
phenomena. At the same time Grbich (1999) states that the reality of genuine
empowerment and equal participation in AR is somewhat illusory and rare, suggesting
that the norm is more likely to reflect “partial participation”. She goes on to argue that
three classifications of AR exist – namely “Directed Action Research”, “Participatory
Action Research” and “Post-Modern Action Research”. Directed Action Research is
indicative of the traditional management approach to organisational research, in that
the AR process is predominantly top-down and involves the researcher as the
controller who conducts s series of experiments and interventions for testing
organisational change. Post-Modern AR represents a much better fit for today, in line
with current reforming health service agendas, in that it is an action-based approach
that focuses on genuine equality, inclusion and participation as a means to transform
and restructure organisations.
A degree of flexibility in approach applies to project management as well as action
research. Hodgson (2002), for instance, states that PM has a dual nature, between
professional discipline and direct control that produces an “interesting” and
occasionally “contradictory” nexus of power relations in the examined organisation.
This further flexibility has emerged as PM has seen its emphasis change over recent
years, where management philosophies have adapted to changing social agendas and
more recent transparent and consumer-focused health service reforms:
The past decade is seen by many within and outside the field as a time of renaissance for
Project management, as issues of flexibility, knowledge management, innovation and
professionalism have come to the fore in the managerial consciousness (Hodgson, 2002, p. 807).
Treating participants appropriately within a PM framework implies that they must now
feel a valued and integral part of the process – and not just a means to an end within it.
Management strategies have had to adapt accordingly to become more flexible, less
bureaucratic and hierarchical and more empowering. Consequently, Bate (2000) argues
that organisational change requires not just a change at a structural or a behavioural
level but ultimately a whole cultural change. Action research subsequently provides an
epistemological framework that embraces the notions of organisational solidarity, moral
courage and a more liberating concept of power (Park, 2001).
It has emerged that project management training and resources need to be more
user-friendly and wide-ranging in their scope and delivery – which is also where the
principles of action research match those of project management. MacFarlane et al.
(2002) suggest that complex managerial change strategies are often extremely
challenging due to the problems of shared ownership. While hierarchy may appear to
be a fundamental component of PM, Ward (1991) states that empowering staff is a
crucial component for the success of quality management projects. Cleland and Ireland
(2002) state that decentralised and empowering team approaches are essential for
contemporary organisations in that they denote a departure from traditional
JHOM management styles, favouring instead multiple responsibility, accountability and
authority relationships that result in shared organisational decisions, results and
19,6 rewards. Milliken (2000) elaborates on this suggesting that PM requires equitable
blending of both people and processes if it is to achieve viable outcomes. If people
involved in PM-related research do not feel involved they are far less likely to
contribute to the project (Dash, 2002). As with AR, it is important to include the needs
528 of the consumer (not just employees but clients as well) as an aspect of ensuring quality
care in managing organisational projects (Magdalyn et al., 2000).
Action research and project management advocate approaches that favour the use of
the researcher as someone who is already immersed in the organisation. Organisations
tend not to react as well to change management systems that are imposed from outside
agents. “Insider” action research strategies have their own dynamics that distinguish
them from an external research approach (Coghlan and Brannick, 2001), as is the case
with project management. Managers who undertake AR may be located anywhere
within the organisation’s hierarchy and has undoubted implications for what might be
researched and how (Coghlan, 2001). This makes it easier for those at the lower end of the
hierarchy to incorporate a participative ethos into their practice.

Summary
Hampshire (2000) argues that action research is the most useful means of improving
quality provision in health care and should be used more often and more widely. Where
arguments exist like those of Jaafari and Manivong (2000), suggesting that project
management research designs only partly fulfil all the objectives of management
projects, new philosophies and methodological frameworks should be sought – hence
the need for articles like this one. Therefore a variety of methodological perspectives
are necessary to avoid any one given method from dominating. Where
organisational-change, action cycles and service reform are the desirable outcomes,
managers should seriously consider the adoption of either or both action research and
project management in their project work. After all do managers not all conduct
research to gain insights as a basis for implementing effective and purposeful
“actions”? Interestingly Dearden et al. (1999) detail an experiential training exercise as
a means to examine and evaluate participatory approaches to project management. In
the only literature source that was found which directly linked the concepts of PM and
AR, Wilkinson et al. (1997) state that:
Working within a formal project-management framework is important in implementing the
action research intervention . . . In general, greater familiarity and awareness by
commissioning authorities of how action research works in practice, together with strict
project management and control should ensure such research has maximum usefulness.
I concur wholeheartedly with the sentiments of the above quotation. Hence I have put
forward the case for and recommend that both approaches can be integrated for future
management-related project studies – either as discrete parts of an overall process or
as a hybrid of both.

References
Badger, T.G. (2000), “Action research, change and methodological rigour”, Journal of Nursing
Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 201-7.
Baguley, P. (1999), Teach Yourself Project Management, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, London.
Baker, C.R. (2000), “Towards the increased use of action research in accounting information Project
systems”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 366-78.
management
Bate, P. (2000), “Synthesizing research and practice: using the action research approach in health
care settings”, Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 478-93.
Bech, N. (2001), “Open doors to leading projects: your new chance to understand and perform
project leadership”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 96-101.
Bee, R. and Bee, F. (1997), Project Management: The People Challenge, Institute of Personnel and 529
Development, London.
Buchanen, D. and Badham, R. (1999), Power, Politics and Organisational Change, Sage, London.
Carroll-Barefield, A. and Smith, S.P. (2001), “Case study: incorporating project management skills
in the design of a clinical research patient management system”, Health Care Manager,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 70-6.
Cleland, D.I. and Ireland, L.R. (2002), Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation,
4th ed., McGraw-Hill, London.
Coghlan, D. (2001), “Insider action research projects: implications for practising managers”,
Management Learning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 40-60.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2001), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organisation, Sage,
London.
Cooper, J. and Hewison, A. (2002), “Implementing audit in palliative care: an action research
approach”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 360-9.
Dash, P. (2002), “Tips on project management”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 325 No. 7369, p. 127.
Dearden, P., Carter, M., Davis, J., Kowalski, R. and Surridge, M. (1999), “Icitrap – an experiential
training exercise for examining participatory approaches to project management”, Public
Administration and Development, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 93-104.
Denscombe, M. (1998), The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects, Open
University Press, Buckingham.
Department of Health (1998), A First Class Service: Quality in the New NHS, HMSO, London.
Department of Health (2000), The NHS Plan, HMSO, London.
Department of Health (2002), Pursuing Perfection: Raising the Bar in Healthcare, NHS
Modernisation Agency, Leicester.
Dickens, L. and Watkins, K. (1999), “Action research: rethinking Lewin”, Management Learning,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 127-40.
Dooris, M. and Thompson, J. (2001), “Health-promoting universities: an overview”, in Scriven, A.
and Orme, J. (Eds), Health Promotion: Professional Perspectives, Palgrave, London,
pp. 156-68.
Dopson, S., Locock, L., Chambers, D. and Gabbay, J. (2001), “Implementation of evidence-based
medicine: evaluation of the Promoting Action on Clinical Effectiveness programme”,
Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 23-31.
Earl-Slater, A. (2002), “The superiority of action research?”, British Journal of Clinical
Governance, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 132-5.
Fisher, D., Rooke, D. and Torbert, B. (2001), Personal and Organisational Transformation
through Action Inquiry, Edge/Work Press, Boston, MA.
Fitzpatrick, R. and White, D. (2001), “Public participation in the evaluation of health care”,
in Davey, B., Gray, A. and Seale, C. (Eds), Health and Disease: A Reader, 3rd ed., Open
University Press, Buckingham, pp. 298-301.
JHOM French, W. and Bell, C. (1999), Organisation Development, Prentice-Hall, London.
19,6 Gaventa, J. and Cornwall, A. (2001), “Power and knowledge”, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H.
(Eds), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage Publications,
London, pp. 70-80.
Grbich, C. (1999), Qualitative Research in Health: An Introduction, Sage, London.
Green, L., Daniel, M. and Norvick, L. (2001), “Partnerships and coalitions for community-based
530 research”, Public Health Reports, Vol. 116, pp. 20-31.
Gronhaug, K. and Olson, O. (1999), “Action research and knowledge creation: merits and
challenges”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 6-14.
Hampshire, A.J. (2000), “What is action research and can it promote change in primary care?”,
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 337-43.
Harrison, R. and Leitch, C.M. (2000), “Learning and organisation in the knowledge-based
information economy: initial findings from a participatory research case study”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 103-19.
Haynes, M.E. (2002), Project Management: Practical Tools for Success, 3rd ed., Crisp Learning,
Menlo Park, CA.
Hefner, D. and Malcolm, C. (2002), “15 essential steps of IT project management”, Healthcare
Financial Management, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 76-8.
Heikkinen, H.L.T., Kakkori, L. and Huttunen, R. (2001), “This is my truth, tell me yours: some
aspects of action research quality in the light of truth theories”, Educational Action
Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 9-24.
Hodgson, D. (2002), “Disciplining the professional: the case of project management”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 803-21.
Jaafari, A. and Manivong, K. (2000), “Synthesis of a model for Life-Cycle Project management”,
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 15, pp. 26-38.
Lenz, E.R. (1999), “Strategies for successful research project management”, Nursing Leadership
Forum, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 26-31.
Livesey, H. and Challender, S. (2002), “Supporting organisational learning: a comparative
approach to evaluation in action research”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 167-76.
Lock, D. (2003), Project Management, 8th ed., Gower, Aldershot.
MacFarlane, F., Gantley, M. and Murray, E. (2002), “The CeMENT project: a case study in change
management”, Medical Teacher, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 320-6.
McKee, M. and Healty, J. (2001), “The role of the hospital in a changing environment”, in Davey, B.,
Gray, A. and Seale, C. (Eds), Health and Disease: A Reader, 3rd ed., Open University Press,
Buckingham, pp. 326-32.
McNiff, J. (2000), Action Research in Organisations, Routledge, London.
Magdalyn, P., Gaynor, S. and Verdin, J. (2000), “Patient education resource assessment: project
management”, Journal of Nursing Care Quality, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 14-20.
Marsick, V.J. (2002), “Special reviews section on action methodologies and learning – extended
review”, Management Learning, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 519-25.
Meyer, J. (2000), “Using qualitative methods in health related action research”, British Medical
Journal, Vol. 320, pp. 178-81.
Milliken, J. (2000), “Essentials of project management: the hard part is the simple stuff”, Home
Health Care Management & Practice, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Morris, P.W.G. (1997), The Management of Projects, 2nd ed., Thomas Telford, London. Project
National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (2001), management
Managing Change in the NHS, Organisational Change: A Review for Health Care
Managers, Professionals and Researchers, NCCSDO, London.
National Health Service South West Regional Office (2002), Our Healthier Nation: Improving the
Competence of the Workforce – Practice Placements as Learning Environments,
NHS-SWRO, Bristol. 531
Øvretveit, J. (2000), “Total quality management in European healthcare”, International Journal of
Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 74-9.
Park, P. (2001), “Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice”, in Reason, P.
and Bradbury, H. (Eds), The Handbook of Action Research, Sage Publications, London,
pp. 81-90.
Porter, T.B. (2002), “Special reviews section on action methodologies and learning – extended
review”, Management Learning, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 537-41.
Potter, C., Morgan, P. and Thompson, A. (1994), “Continuous quality improvement in an acute
hospital: a report of an action research project in three hospital departments”, International
Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 4-29.
Roberts, K. and Ludvigsen, C. (1998), Project Management for Health Care Professionals,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
St Leger, A.S. and Walsworth-Bell, J.P. (1999), Change-Promoting Research for Health Services,
Open University Press, Buckingham.
Smith, G.R. (1999), “Project leadership: why project management alone doesn’t work”, Hospital
Material Management Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 88-92.
Spath, S. (2001), “Hone your project management skills”, Hospital Peer Review, Vol. 26 No. 7,
pp. 101-3.
Walter, M. (2001), “Organisation and management”, in Naidoo, J. and Wills, J. (Eds), Health
Studies: An Introduction, Palgrave, London, pp. 193-224.
Ward, K. (1991), “Project approach to quality management”, International Journal of Health Care
Quality Assurance, Vol. 4 No. 4.
Waterson, J. (2000), “Balancing research and action: reflections on an action research project in a
social services department”, Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 494-508.
Whitehead, D., Taket, A. and Smith, P. (2003), “Action research in health promotion”, Health
Education Journal, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Wilkinson, E., Elander, E. and Woolaway, M. (1997), “Exploring the use of action research to
stimulate and evaluate workplace health promotion”, Health Education Journal, Vol. 56,
pp. 188-98.
Yeatman, H.R. and Nove, T. (2002), “Reorientating health services with capacity building: a case
study of the Core Skills in Health Promotion Project”, Health Promotion International,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 341-50.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996), New Directions in Action Research, Falmer Press, London.

Further reading
Ellis, J.H. and Kiely, J.A. (2000), “Action inquiry strategies: taking stock and moving forward”,
Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 83-94.