Archives of Scientific Psychology 2018, 6, 169 –177 © 2018 The Author(s)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000054 2169-3269

Archives of Scientific Psychology

www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc

SPECIAL SECTION: HETERODOX ISSUES IN PSYCHOLOGY

Action Research in Social Psychology

Andrew F. Simon
Seton Hall University

David Wilder
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

A B S T R A C T

Action research is a heterodox idea in social psychology despite the fact that it was advocated and practiced by founders
of modern social psychology. We examine how and why action research and social psychology diverged over the ensuing
years. We trace the trajectory of social psychology following World War II with a focus on the crisis of the 1970s that
challenged fundamental assumptions of the discipline. The evolution of action research is also addressed with a focus on
its view of how knowledge emerges. A central theme is social psychology’s consistent identification as a positivist science,
whereas modern-day action research is more aligned with the tenets of postmodernism. Recommendations are provided for
moving toward greater awareness of what each can contribute to the other while recognizing their fundamental differences.

S C I E N T I F I C A B S T R A C T

This paper addresses the connection between action research and social psychology. Action research is a means of
conducting research that focuses on solving a problem. Action researchers partner with those working in settings, such as
organizations or schools, so that, together, they can better understand how people are interacting and identify means for
improvement. Social psychologists also study issues related to how people interact but they do not focus on solving
problems. Rather, they conduct experiments as a way of identifying general principles of human behavior. In the 1940s,
action researchers and social psychologists saw their efforts as complementary. Since that time, the two have separated to
the point that, today, there is little-to-no overlap in their work. In this paper, we discuss (a) how this separation has
occurred, (b) why reconnecting the two would serve the general understanding of social behavior, and (c) how this
reconnection can occur.

Keywords: action research, social psychology, history, experimentation

For mainstream social psychology today, action research is a hetero- research was considered normal methodology alongside laboratory and
dox idea even though action research was part of the formative years of field experimentation (Hovland, 1951; Lewin, 1946). Over succeeding
American social psychology during the 1940s. At that time, action decades, action research in social psychology all but disappeared. In this

This article was published November 15, 2018.

Andrew F. Simon, Department of Psychology, Seton Hall University; David Wilder, Department of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
This article is part of the special section “Heterodox Issues in Psychology.” The guest editor for this section is Scott O. Lilienfeld.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which allows anyone to
download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy this content, so long as the original authors and source are cited and the article’s integrity is maintained.
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s). Author(s) grant(s) the American Psychological Association a license to publish the article and identify itself
as the original publisher. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew F. Simon, Department of Psychology, Seton Hall University, 355 Jubilee Hall, 400 South
Orange Avenue, South Orange, NJ 07079. E-mail: andrew.simon@shu.edu
170 SIMON AND WILDER
article, we (1) distinguish between action research and both basic and
applied social psychology, (2) briefly trace the emergence of action
research and its disappearance from social psychology, (3) explore why
there is little to no overlap between social psychology and action research
today, and (4) offer suggestions for why and how the two can be
understood as complementary to one another in enhancing our under-
standing of social behavior.
Social psychology is “the scientific study of how people think about,
influence, and relate to one another” (Myers & Twenge, 2017, p. 2). Like
other areas of psychology, social psychology has adopted a scientific
outlook stemming initially from positivism (Comte, 1830/1896) and,
later, logical positivism (Stadler, 2001). Briefly, the logical positivist
position is that knowledge is obtained through observation of public
events (i.e., others can confirm or replicate the observations); unobserv-
ables (e.g., intervening variables, hypothetical constructs) have meaning
if they can be linked to observables. With this empiricist perspective,
social psychologists search for replicable relationships that contribute to
explanatory theories of social behavior. This is accomplished largely
through careful experimentation in a laboratory or other controlled envi-
ronment. Delving into the history of social psychology, there was a
relatively brief period, largely during the 1940s, when some social psy-
chologists took a broader approach and regarded action research as
complementary to laboratory experiments.
What Is Action Research?
Action research is a methodology that “seeks to bring together
action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others,
in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to
people” (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 1). The essential components
of action research have been succinctly summarized by Peters and
Robinson (1984) as (1) a focus on solving a problem, (2) a systematic
series of procedural steps, and (3) collaboration involving researchers
and their participants (see also Aguinis, 1993; Rapoport, 1970; Sus-
man & Evered, 1978).
How does action research differ from applied social psychology?
Applied social psychology is the application of theories and research
findings, often based on laboratory experiments, to particular social
problems (Sanford, 1970). Bradbury (2015) nicely distinguished among
basic, applied, and action research in science. We adapted her distinctions
for social psychology as follows: (a) Basic research is typically conducted
in a highly controlled laboratory setting, and its aim is to discover
relationships among social variables and to test hypotheses derived from
theories of social behavior; (b) applied research uses the theories and
empirical findings from basic research to address a social problem outside
the laboratory; and (c) action research partners the researcher with the
targets of the investigation to solve a social problem collaboratively. The
quality of the research in basic and applied psychology rests on its
methodological rigor. By comparison, action research focuses on solving
a particular problem at a specific point in time. Success rests on whether
a solution is achieved irrespective of whether or not that solution gener-
alizes to other settings.
The beginning of action research is generally attributed to Kurt
Lewin, a founding father of social psychology. In “Action Research
and Minority Problems,” Lewin (1946) conceived of action research
as both addressing a social problem and contributing to the larger
goals of science. He argued that general principles of social interac-
tion could be discovered through attempts to change social conditions,
such as reducing racial prejudice. However, Lewin (1946) noted that
general “laws do not tell what conditions exist locally, at a given place
at a given time” (p. 44). He considered social researchers to be
misdirected when they sought a particular technology for understand-
ing social dynamics. Instead of seeking to compile a cookbook of
problem-solving recipes, social researchers should act like a physician
treating a patient. The physician relies on knowledge of different
treatment possibilities while striving to personalize the intervention to
best match the unique condition of each patient. Similarly, action
research achieves success by following a “spiral of steps” that in-
volves “a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result
of the action” (Lewin, 1946, p. 38).
From his background in Gestalt psychology, Lewin regarded the
behaviors of individuals and groups as inseparable from their larger
social contexts. Social contexts included the meanings, norms, and
values that underlie behavior (Peters & Robinson, 1984). Lewin’s
(1946) holistic perspective extended to his view of how research
should unfold: “Social research concerns itself with two rather differ-
ent types of question, namely the study of general laws of group life
and the diagnosis of a specific situation. . . . For any field of action
both types of scientific research are needed” (p. 36). Based on this
perspective, action research and lab experimentation were seen as
modes of inquiry that should function hand-in-hand in the study of
social behavior.
Early Years of Action Research
Lewin’s interest in action research led to his establishing the
Commission on Community Interrelations (CCI), which was devoted
to addressing anti-Semitism and other social problems (Gold, 1999;
Marrow, 1969). One of his first action research projects through CCI
involved the behavior of a teen gang in Coney Island, New York
(Bellow et al., 1947). A gang of Italian teenagers had harassed
worshippers at a temple on Yom Kippur. The community sought
recommendations on how to prevent future turmoil. Recognizing that
the quality of information he would gather depended on the trust he
could establish within the community, Lewin composed a task force
that reflected the community: “Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and Ne-
groes” (Marrow, 1969, p. 203). Information gathered from this team
indicated that the behavior of the gang was due less to anti-Semitism
than to general discontent and frustrations (e.g., problems with hous-
ing, employment). Jews were singled out because they were a target
of convenience—a conspicuous group celebrating their holiday. These
findings led to promised changes from community leaders and a
request that CCI continue to work closely within the community to
reduce tensions. A final report concluded that teen behavior had been
positively influenced by the CCI recommendations. As noted by
Marrow (1969),
Fighting had dropped off sharply. . . . The upshot of this successful
pioneer adventure in action research was to provide a pattern for an attack
on the problems of a world of street gangs, cellar clubs, and ethnic
rivalries which has since been adopted by many private and public
agencies across the country. (pp. 204 –205)
The project on gang behavior illustrates a fundamental feature of
action research—the active involvement of the community members
in collaboration with researchers to generate a solution to a problem.
Lewin was well aware of the limitations of drawing general conclu-
sions from action research. He noted the lack of controls that pre-
cluded causal inferences and acknowledged the existence of alterna-
tive interpretations of the outcomes. As observed by a colleague at the
time, “Lewin was much more interested in having significant research
started on major social problems, even if the approach was crude, than
on unimportant problems with nice, neat, precise methods” (Marrow,
1969, pp. 154 –155).
Contemporaries of Lewin, such as Hovland, Janis, and Kelley
(1953), were also interested in studying how to influence social
behavior. However, they approached the topic from a perspective
 ACTION RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
steeped in lab-based experimentation as they sought to identify gen-
eral principles of persuasion. Their research was designed to examine
the components of social influence—namely, those involving a com-
municator, message, medium, and audience. They saw their work as
complementary, rather than contrary, to applied interests such as
Lewin’s action research. The persuasion research program of Hovland
and his colleagues was a harbinger of how experimental social psy-
chology would proceed in the decades that followed.
Hovland (1951) reflected on the relatively loose problem-solving
methods of Lewin’s action research in relation to his own experimen-
tal paradigm: “We face a dilemma: the isolation and control of
variables can best be achieved with single, controlled events, but the
impact of a single experience may be insufficient to change the
attitudes in which we are interested” (p. 436). His observation pointed
to a complementary relationship between action research and lab
experimentation. Hovland and colleagues (1953) noted that they drew
upon Lewin’s “research on the effects of group membership” for ideas
to study in the lab (p. 3). In short, both lab experimenters and action
researchers recognized benefits each methodology could provide the
other. Despite this promising beginning, social psychology and action
research moved far away from one another over the succeeding
decades.
It should be noted that a great deal of action research, including that
conducted through CCI, was published in practitioner-oriented outlets
such as Human Relations. The formation of practitioner-oriented
journals likely contributed to the subsequent divergence of action
research and social psychology. Overall, the action research that
began with Lewin and his students and continued on through the
mid-1960s has been called the “first wave” of action research (Eike-
land, 2003). It was an era in which many considered action research
to be an extension to experimentation. This era for action research,
like that for social psychology, was soon affected by ideas that moved
the two farther apart.
Specialization and Divergence
The two decades following World War II saw a dramatic growth
among psychology departments across the United States (Pickren,
2007). Social psychology entered what may be considered, with some
exaggeration, a “golden age” of growth (House, 2008). Researchers
sought to identify reliable relationships among social variables and
generate theories that could be applied to promoting functional social
relations. Employing tools of the natural sciences, causal networks
were thought to be most likely found via experimentation, primarily in
the lab.
By comparison, action research was methodologically loose and
lacked the control necessary for theory development. But even among
experimentalists, there were some who expressed concern about the
lab-facing focus of the field. As far back as 1949, Cartwright cau-
tioned that
impressive gains in technical competence and sophistication have been, I
fear, something of a mixed blessing, for the fascination with technique
seems all too often to have replaced a concern for substantive signifi-
cance. The literature is full of studies that do little more than demonstrate
the technical virtuosity of the investigator. . . . One would hope that the
obsession with technique is a temporary phenomenon . . . but I suspect
that change will not come quickly, since it is much easier for research
review committees, editors, and departmental executive committees to
evaluate methods than the quality or significance of substantive content.
(p. 87)
The concern expressed by Cartwright, repeated by him in 1979,
may be as relevant today as it was when written nearly 70 years ago.
171
Yet, despite such trepidations, lab experiments came to define the
field of social psychology from the mid-20th century onward. Classics
such as Asch’s (1955) conformity experiments, Heider’s (1958) work
on social perception and attribution, Festinger’s (1957) dissonance
theory, and Milgram’s (1974) obedience research, among others,
significantly shaped the discipline. Lab experimentation became the
dominant methodology for social psychologists while action research
became the mode of inquiry for researchers in applied settings and
only the occasional academic.
The divergence of action research and social psychology can par-
tially be attributed to social psychology’s success during this era.
Scientific development is characterized by specialization; it is both
inevitable and necessary for deepening a knowledge base within a
field (Ziman, 1996). Specialization develops subareas within a disci-
pline, identifies critical issues, and “ensures academic rigor”
(Mudambi, Hannigan, & Kline, 2012, p. 84). It also fosters the growth
of critical masses of literature that generate a core of knowledge and
shared methods. The development of social psychology matches this
description as both the number of social psychologists and publication
outlets increased significantly during the latter half of the 20th cen-
tury. Membership in the American Psychological Association’s Divi-
sion 8 (Social and Personality Psychology) rose steadily from around
500 at the end of World War II to a high of nearly 5,000 in the late
1960s and early 1970s (Green, 2018). Action research fell out of the
discipline and was taken up by those in more applied domains, such
as educational, community, and organizational studies (Glassman,
Erdem, & Bartholomew, 2013).
The optimism that followed World War II had faded among some
social psychologists by the 1970s. Critics pointed out that social
psychology had failed to achieve the comprehensive theories and
applied technologies of other sciences (Back, 1963). Harkening back
to Lewin, Ring (1967) noted that the field had abandoned action
research and failed to appreciate the symbiotic relationship between
basic and applied research. Adding to this critique, others stressed that
the discipline had become overly focused on studying undergraduates
with minimal relevance to other populations and to social contexts
outside the lab (e.g., Faye, 2012; House, 1977; Lachenmeyer, 1970;
Ring, 1967; Silverman, 1971; Steiner, 1974).
The emphasis on lab experimentation can be seen in the kinds of
studies that were published. By 1974, the flagship journals were
dominated by laboratory experiments: Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology (84%), Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(85%), and Journal of Personality (85%); even the Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, created in 1971 to provide an outlet dedicated to
applied work, published a majority of papers (63%) involving labo-
ratory research (Fried, Gumpper, & Allen, 1973; Helmreich, 1975;
House, 1977). McGuire (1967) wondered if the field would be better
off using the etymologically correct meaning of “experimental” as “to
test, to try” rather than as to manipulate (p. 128). The broader
definition of “experimental” would certainly be more in the spirit of
action research. Moreover, the increase in carefully controlled lab
experiments fueled greater dependence on deception. This led to
ethical concerns, most notably expressed in the unease generated by
Milgram’s obedience research (e.g., Baumrind, 1964; Kelman, 1967;
Ring, Wallston, & Corey, 1970).
It was also during this time that the positivist foundation of social
psychology was challenged by skeptics, including advocates of post-
modern thought (e.g., Habermas, 1970). These skeptics challenged the
very idea that the social sciences could follow the same path as the
natural sciences (Cahoone, 2003; Capaldi & Proctor, 2009). Findings
from the social sciences were bound by culture and time and, there-
fore, would not lead to theories of behavior that would offer the
172 SIMON AND WILDER
certainty found in either the biological or physical sciences. Social
psychologists would be better off using an action research paradigm in
which social problems are addressed in specific contexts rather than
continuing a search for generalizable principles.
Defense of Experimentalism
Consistent with a postmodern perspective, Gergen (1973) charac-
terized social psychology as a documentation of history. He posited
that social norms often change as society evolves. Thus, a study on
normative behavior does not yield insight on enduring principles of
human interaction but rather documents interactions during a partic-
ular era. Gergen also argued that social psychology contributes to this
instability by its very search for objective relationships. Once a theory
or research finding about human behavior is known to the public, this
information can cause people to alter their actions in ways that may
invalidate the findings. The same concern is present within the lab;
participants aware of being studied may change their behavior to
please or frustrate a researcher. In short, social psychology cannot be
considered a science comparable to a natural science in which the
targets of study are not aware of or are not able to alter their behavior
in response to being studied.
Gergen’s thesis generated sharp rebukes (e.g., Manis, 1975; Schlen-
ker, 1974). Schlenker (1974) argued that Gergen built his thesis on
theories that were too narrow and specific. More important, Schlenker
pointed out that contradictory or unexplained findings are also char-
acteristic of the natural sciences. With time, apparent inconsistencies
become integrated by unifying explanations. This is how science
evolves, and social psychology was following the same path by using
the tools of empiricism. Schlenker further argued that Gergen had
inaccurately portrayed the impact of disseminated knowledge. Social
psychologists had already demonstrated that presenting people with
theories about their own behavior had, in many instances, little to no
impact on subsequent actions (McGuire, 1969). Even if knowledge of
research findings affected behavior, that outcome itself was amenable
to being explained by scientific theory. An understanding of human
behavior would come as researchers worked to make theories “more
complete and adequate in performing their explanatory function”
(Schlenker, 1974, p. 12). According to Schlenker, those working to
address social problems will be better equipped to do so when draw-
ing upon theories supported by basic experimental research.
Other questions raised during this time focused not on whether
social psychology could be a science but on whether experimentation
was a satisfactory methodology. Among these were debates about the
relative merits of mundane versus experimental realism (Aronson &
Carlsmith, 1968), external validity (Mook, 1983), and ecological
validity (Banaji & Crowder, 1989). A brief discussion of these issues
is warranted as they pertain to distinctions between social psychology
and action research.
The criticism that lab experiments should better resemble the out-
side world has been examined and, in our view, successfully refuted.
This is the issue of experimental versus mundane realism (Aronson &
Carlsmith, 1968). Studies high in experimental realism may not look
like the “real” world (such as Asch’s use of line length judgments in
his conformity paradigm), but their findings are compelling because
subjects are thoroughly engaged in the procedures. In contrast, studies
high in mundane realism (resemblance to the “real” world) do not
always engage the participants fully. A robust test of a hypothesis is
predicated on the study possessing experimental realism. Mundane
realism, while not undesirable, is not a necessary requirement for
validity.
Second, and more concerning in our view, is the issue of whether
lab research, even if high in experimental realism, possesses external
validity. Can the results be generalized beyond the laboratory context?
Questions of external validity include generalization to settings typi-
cal of everyday life (ecological validity), to people unlike the partic-
ipants (population validity), and to other times (historical validity;
Wegener & Blankenship, 2007). Although desirable, an excessive
concern with external validity can miss an important part of the
scientific enterprise. Individual experiments are conducted to test
hypotheses that, in turn, are derived or linked to theories of social
behavior. The primary focus should be on assessing whether or not a
theory can predict or explain phenomena in the social world rather
than the generalizability of any specific experiment. Mook (1983)
argued persuasively that it is the theory that connects research with the
world beyond the lab, so it is the ability of theory to predict behavior
that is the key to determining the external validity of research. Banaji
and Crowder (1989) added to this argument by pointing to drawbacks
of making external validity the primary concern. If, in an attempt to
maximize external validity, an experiment provides a flawed test of
theory, the outcome of the study will be less generalizable than a more
“artificial” experiment whose strength lies in its internal validity.
Whether or not one sides with the critics or the defenders of social
psychology, experimental research continued to dominate the major
journals (Higbee, Millard, & Folkman, 1982). In a review of articles
published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Carl-
son (1984) reported that not only did most research involve lab
experiments, but there was usually minimal, if any, social interaction
among participants in these studies. Only 7% of the studies in the
section on “Attitudes and Social Cognition” and 39% of those in the
section on “Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes” involved
social interaction between participants.
Action research was not directly involved in the debate over
whether social psychology was a science and the extent to which lab
experiments should possess external validity. For action researchers,
validity was based on the integrity with which one followed a process
of inquiry. The goal of action research remained functional—to pro-
vide a solution to an immediate and concrete social problem. By this
time, action research had separated from its early link to social
psychology and had become a methodology used by those interested
in practical issues. That social psychology resolved its “crisis” by
reaffirming its commitment to the natural science model served to
reinforce the existing separation between the two.
Second Era of Action Research
Although the ideas of postmodernism had a minimal impact on
mainstream social psychology, this movement was influential in
bringing forth a “second wave” of action research (Eikeland, 2003).
Action research, by this time, was primarily found in business and
organizational dynamics (Argyris, 1982), community development
(Hiebert & Swan, 1999), and education (Postholm, 2011). The focus
was on issues of power and dialogue in addressing social and orga-
nizational challenges (Bradbury Huang, 2010). Knowledge was un-
derstood to be a cocreation of those engaged in the inquiry process,
meaning both researchers and practitioners. Torbert (1998) distin-
guished three types of inquiry, denoting them as first-, second-, and
third-person action research.
First-person action research focuses on the self-reflective processes
of an individual. This includes the assumptions, choices, and actions
that shape inquiry (Reason & Torbert, 2001). An example comes from
Heen’s (2005) insights while consulting on workplace equality. After
studying the organization that hired her, Heen encountered resistance
when presenting her findings to a leadership team. Heen used the
feelings she experienced to explore the broader role of feelings within
organizational life, couching her presentation in the framework of
 ACTION RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
feminist and social theory. This account represents the type of first-
person knowledge that can emerge during a broader process of in-
quiry. Although first-person accounts are recognized as sources of
knowledge in action research, they are regarded as unscientific and
peripheral to research in social psychology. Nevertheless, first-person
accounts can serve as the bases for experimental ideas. For instance,
Lewin’s student, Zeigarnik (1938), designed a series of experiments
looking at memory for uncompleted tasks after observing an episode
at a restaurant where a waiter was better able to remember orders not
completed than those in which the customers had been served (Schultz
& Schultz, 2012).
Second-person action research focuses on the communication and
behaviors between researchers and practitioners in a project. For
example, Duncan and Ridley-Duff (2014) led an intervention de-
signed to serve Pakistani women living in a suburb in the United
Kingdom. The women had moved to the region following arranged
marriages and, once there, experienced intense discrimination. A goal
of the intervention was to facilitate discussion among the women so
they could support one another and feel less marginalized in their
community. In their report, the authors highlighted the importance of
what they learned from listening to stories of the lives of these
women. Most notably, they discussed how they attempted to shape the
interpretations of the stories to be more positive and that this, based on
feedback from the women, actually perpetuated the experience of
powerlessness that the researchers were trying to redress. The re-
searchers then adjusted their methodology so the women could inter-
pret their stories in whatever form was appropriate for them. This led
to the women experiencing a greater sense of empowerment. As with
first-person action research, mainstream social psychology does not
typically endorse collaborative interaction between researchers and
participants. Nevertheless, there are cases in which social psycholo-
gists have been informed by their interactions with participants in
ways that influenced the design of subsequent experiments. For in-
stance, Milgram noted how the experiences of his research team
helped shape his research on social norms (Luo, 2004). After assign-
ing his team the task of sitting very close to other riders on a subway,
he was surprised to find that it was his research assistants, not other
passengers, who experienced intense stress. Milgram engaged in the
procedure himself and had a comparable reaction. This spurred him to
design further experiments on social norms (Milgram & Sabini,
1978).
A third-person action research account focuses on the knowledge
that comes from reaching a large population that extends beyond the
immediate researcher-practitioner collaboration. This form of inquiry
is closest to that found in traditional forms of applied social psychol-
ogy. A key difference is that action researchers do not seek to control
variables, nor do they require a uniform experience for all partici-
pants. In third-person action research, new knowledge often emerges
in different forms across the population. An example comes from
Gustavsen’s (2001) 20⫹-year project focused on transforming work
life across organizations in Scandinavia. Organizational employees
partnered with researchers to hold conversations in which employees’
ideas and visions could be explored. Gustavsen documented a process
in which the relationships that emerged through dialogue changed the
way the employees conceptualized their work. An applied social
psychologist would likely have approached this project by designing
a study in which all employees experienced identical procedures with
data collection occurring through surveys or questionnaires. Instead,
Gustavsen notes that this project succeeded because those involved in
the discussions created work processes that served their particular
circumstances and goals.
173
As with social psychology, the specialization of action research led
to notable developments. New methods for affecting change have
been identified, and there are more fine-tuned distinctions made in the
knowledge produced by different forms of inquiry. Evidence of the
movement toward specialization can be found with the introduction of
the journal Educational Action Research in 1992, the publication of
the Handbook of Action Research in 2001, and the introduction of the
journal, Action Research, in 2003. Nevertheless, despite its growth
and utility, action research is often perceived by scholars as less
valuable than approaches that facilitate the identification of general-
izable principles. In response to this, Bradbury Huang (2010), the
editor of Action Research, echoed the comments of the early social
psychologists by stressing that “action research offers an important
complement to conventional social science” (p. 95).
Going Forward
The lack of connection we see today between social psychology
and action research is, to a degree, a product of their respective
successes. Specialization, both in theory and practice, has led to
greater clarity of the goals and technologies that characterize the work
in each domain. Yet divergence between the two has come at a cost
to a more complete science of social behavior.
Science advances through complementary cycles of specialization
and integration, each necessary for maintaining a healthy balance
(Graham & Dayton, 2002; Greene, 1997; Mudambi et al., 2012;
Pfeffer, 1993; Rammert, 2006). There are costs when this balance is
lost. Too much focus on integration leads to a loss of fine-tuned and
in-depth understanding. Too much focus on specialization leads to
distinct and disconnected factions within an area of study. We do not
want to become “too shallow or too isolated” (Mudambi et al., 2012,
p. 100).
Action research and social psychology have grown farther apart as
each has developed and specialized. Benefits to both can come from
a consideration of how they may become more integrated. In explor-
ing this possibility, it would be naive to suggest that the two ap-
proaches be integrated today as they were in the time of Lewin and
Hovland, when the field was smaller in size and scope. We also
recognize that major differences in how each approaches the study of
social behavior make it likely that their respective literatures and
audiences will remain largely separate. Nevertheless, we do believe
there is value to be gained by encouraging researchers in both fields
to see how the work of the other can complement their own.
Benefits to Social Psychology
As we have noted, experimental social psychology and action
research have fundamental differences in their approach to research.
Ironically, it is precisely because of those differences that we believe
they should be encouraged to pay more attention to each other. Social
psychology can benefit from paying attention to action research in two
major ways.
First, action research can be employed as a proving ground to test
predictions from social psychological theories. The open nature of the
action research setting provides a means for examining the robustness
of experiment-driven theories. Lack of support for a particular theory
in the action research setting can stimulate modifications that ulti-
mately strengthen the theory (Durcikova, Lee, & Brown, 2018). On
the other hand, support for a theory in the multivariate action setting
would provide strong evidence for the utility of the theory outside the
lab.
Second, social psychology can benefit by using action research as
a source for ideas. Social psychologists operate in a closed system due
174 SIMON AND WILDER
to the necessity for control and manageable-sized experiments. Closed
systems are critical to conducting causal research. But, as argued by
Lynd-Stevenson (2007),
[a] notable difficulty is that researchers must know in advance what
extraneous variables need to be controlled before procedures can be
implemented to create a closed system. Because closed systems rarely
occur in nature (Cook & Campbell, 1979), researchers must use an array
of methodological procedures to create a closed system and there is
always the chance that extraneous variables unknown to the researcher
may invalidate their causal conclusions. (p. 290)
In light of this observation, it is important to remember that social
psychologists intend their theories to be applicable to the social world
outside the lab (Banaji & Crowder, 1989; Mook, 1983). Because
action research is conducted in a multivariate, open system, it can be
a source for novel ideas that might go unseen in the more closed lab
environment. Action research can serve to identify variables and
interactions that have not yet been considered or tested in the lab.
Thus, for social psychology, action research may be of value in
generating hypotheses as well as for observing how theory plays out
in real-time situations.
Benefits to Action Research
Action research can benefit from social psychology by incorpo-
rating experimental findings into the inquiry process. Use of ex-
perimental findings and theories to structure how action research-
ers approach their specific problems is preferable to reliance on
trial-and-error or lay hypotheses of social behavior. However, this
seems to occur rarely. Among the three action research projects
noted above (Duncan & Ridley-Duff, 2014; Gustavsen, 2001;
Heen, 2005), two do not include a single citation from a social
psychology journal, and one, the work of Gustavsen, cites only two
(both writings of Lewin).
We offer Duncan and Ridley-Duff’s (2014) work with the Pakistani
women living in the United Kingdom as an example of how research
from social psychology can be of service to action research. The goal
of this project was to support and empower the women by addressing
issues related to their identity and social standing. These are well-
researched issues in social psychology, and, we suggest, those in-
volved in this project could have benefited from the literature on, for
instance, social identity theory (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998), social
perceptions (Nater & Zell, 2015), stereotype threat (Appel, Weber, &
Kronberger, 2015), and discrimination (Lott & Meluso, 1995). Fur-
ther, the authors noted that a key and unexpected outcome of their
research was how their own bias shaped the women’s stories. In
hindsight, the researchers might have avoided this problem had they
been familiar with the social psychological literature on bias (Mills &
Stone, 2012) and obedience (Passini & Morselli, 2010) prior to
initiating the intervention.
Recommendations
We propose three means to promote greater interaction between
action researchers and social psychologists. These recommendations
focus on the acquisition of information, promotion of collaboration,
and education of the next generation of researchers.
Information acquisition. We suggest there is value to be
gained for action researchers by reading review articles from the
social psychology literature. Established findings and theory are
especially useful when action researchers collaborate with practi-
tioners who are unlikely to be familiar with the scientific research
literature. Additionally, there are methods within social psychol-
ogy that can be of value to action researchers. Durcikova et al.
(2018) discuss ways in which action researchers can make their
work more rigorous and, as a result, more compelling to positivist
researchers. They propose a “statistical” action research, in which
researchers and practitioners generate hypotheses, distribute sur-
veys, and analyze data to assess project outcomes (p. 242). This
can occur without interfering with the goals or procedure involved
in the inquiry process.
In turn, social psychologists can benefit from reading action re-
search reports, but to do so, they will have to look outside the
mainstream social psychology journals. Action research can be found
in outlets for researchers specializing in work on communities, orga-
nizations, education, and issues of social concern. High-quality work
can also be found in the journal Action Research, which publishes
projects spanning a range of action research perspectives, topics, and
locales.
Collaboration. In a recent review of the effectiveness of scien-
tific teams, Hall and colleagues (2018) found that the “evidence
overwhelmingly suggests that boundary-spanning teams have better
outcomes, including greater productivity and scientific impact, com-
pared with less distributed teams or solo scientists” (p. 535). Social
psychologists and action researchers open to integrative work may
discover that collaborating with colleagues from the other discipline
yields such success. We suggest the following as possible means for
doing so.
(a) An action research project can be combined with one or
more relevant lab experiments in a single publication. Al-
though this seems a high bar to set, journals have become
more likely to require multiple studies in a published paper
(Cialdini, 2009). A paper that contains the diverse methods
of action research and lab experimentation would present a
uniquely appealing contribution to the literature. Further-
more, the combination of lab experiment and action re-
search tests the relevance of the causal-based lab findings
with the outside world in an immediately relevant situation.
In turn, yoking action research to experimentation would
enhance the generalizability of the action-based work.
However, we recognize that it may be especially challenging for action
researchers and lab researchers to share the design and implementation of
a joint venture. A more practical collaboration might involve a social
psychologist designing an experiment based on the outcome of an action
research project. We note above how the action researchers working to
support the community of Pakistani women in the United Kingdom might
have benefited from knowledge of relevant social psychology findings
(Duncan & Ridley-Duff, 2014). A social psychologist could review the
action research report and design one or more experiments to test the
researchers’ observations about social identity and empowerment. The
net effect of publishing such integrative work would be a gain in under-
standing and generalization for both the social psychologist and the action
researcher. We know of no attempts to do such combined work, but that
may simply reflect the separation that has grown between action research
and social psychology rather than the impossibility or undesirability of
collaboration.
(b) Researchers could also collaborate on a paper that inte-
grates the findings from previously published studies. This
could take the form of a literature review focusing on a
particular variable or construct as studied by both social
psychologists and action researchers. For instance, we refer
above to the first-person action research of Heen (2005), in
which her project on workplace equality led to an explora-
 ACTION RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
tion of the role of feelings in organizations. Because Heen
frames her discussion in relation to feminism and social
theory, it would be possible to integrate this work with the
social psychology literature on gender and emotion (e.g.,
Timmers, Fischer, & Manstead, 1998). Such an integrative
review could be done by researchers within one discipline
or as a cross-boundary collaboration.
(c) Events at conferences can be designed to encourage inte-
gration by exploring uses of each other’s methods and
findings. In essence, this would be an action research proj-
ect. The perspective of the other colleague can be valuable
for the social psychologist, when generating hypotheses,
and for the action researcher, when preparing an
intervention.
Education. The vitality of any field of inquiry has to include
consideration of the next generation of researchers. Specialization and
career direction are a core function of graduate education; students are
taught the methods and literature associated with their areas of interest
and are directed toward promising topics for launching their careers.
Relatively little, if any, attention is given to the history of the disci-
pline. In our view, this is a notable shortcoming of many graduate
programs. The generative questions that set a discipline in motion are
grounded in its history.
We recognize that students and programs have finite time and
resources (as is also true for researchers). Nevertheless, exposure to
alternative methodologies can serve graduate students by diversifying
their skills and broadening the range of research questions they are
equipped to consider. Topic and method specialization can sharpen
students’ skills, but it can also leave them unaware of alternatives. In
talking about the effect of specialization on students, Greene (1997)
notes that “they assume a historical discontinuity—a case of replace-
ment, not of descent” (p. 620). Greene points out that researchers who
know the history of how their line of inquiry emerged have a context
in which to assess the significance of their specialized work. In the
case of educating the next generation of social psychologists and
action researchers, students can be taught the history of their respec-
tive methodologies as well as the strengths and weaknesses inherent to
the assumptions underlying it, such as those emanating from positiv-
ism and postmodernism.
In sum, action research, which began in social psychology follow-
ing World War II, has become a heterodox idea in the discipline
today. Given the divergent trends in social psychology and action
research, it is unlikely we will see a full reconnection of these
approaches to studying social behavior. Yet, as long as we are mindful
of each approach’s strengths and limitations, and mindful of the value
of specialization as well as integration, both hold the potential to
contribute in a complementary manner to the understanding of social
behavior.
References
Aguinis, H. A. (1993). Action research and scientific method: Presumed
discrepancies and actual similarities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
29, 416 – 431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886393294003
Appel, M., Weber, S., & Kronberger, N. (2015). The influence of stereotype
threat on immigrants: Review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,
900. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00900
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning and action. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1968). Experimentation in social psychology.
In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd
ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1–79). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
175
Asch, S. E. (1955, November). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific Amer-
ican (pp. 1–35). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from https://
www.lucs.lu.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Asch-1955-Opinions-and-
Social-Pressure.pdf
Back, K. W. (1963). The proper scope of social psychology. Social Forces, 41,
368 –376. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2573282
Banaji, M. R., & Crowder, R. G. (1989). The bankruptcy of everyday memory.
American Psychologist, 44, 1185–1193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.44.9.1185
Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading
Milgram’s “behavioral study of obedience.” American Psychologist, 19,
421– 423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040128
Bellow, B., Blum, M. L., Clark, K. B., Haas, M., Haydon, E. M., Hogrefe, R.,
. . . Schreiber, I. (1947). Prejudice in “Seaside,” a report of an action-
research project. Human Relations, 1, 98 –120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
001872674700100107
Bradbury, H. (2015). Introduction to the handbook of action research. In H.
Bradbury (Ed.), Handbook of action research (3rd ed., pp. 11–12). London,
UK: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473921290
Bradbury Huang, H. (2010). What is good action research? Why the resurgent
interest? Action Research, 8, 93–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1476750310362435
Cahoone, L. E. (2003). From modernism to postmodernism: An anthology (2nd
ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Capaldi, E. J., & Proctor, R. W. (2009). Two radically different worldviews of
psychological science: Implications for the psychology of science. Journal
of Psychology of Science and Technology, 2, 44 –58. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1891/1939-7054.2.2.44
Carlson, R. (1984). What’s social about social psychology? Where’s the person
in personality research? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47,
1304 –1309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1304
Cartwright, D. (1949). Basic and applied social psychology. Philosophy of
Science, 16, 198 –208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/287037
Cartwright, D. (1979). Social psychology in historical perspective. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 42, 82–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3033880
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). We have to break up. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 4, 5– 6.
Comte, A. (1896). The positive philosophy of Comte. London, UK: Bell.
(Original work published 1830)
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and
analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Duncan, G., & Ridley-Duff, R. (2014). Appreciate inquiry as a method of
transforming identity and power in Pakistani women. Action Research, 12,
117–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476750314524005
Durcikova, A., Lee, A. S., & Brown, S. A. (2018). Making rigorous research
relevant: Innovating statistical action research. Management Information
Systems Quarterly, 42, 241–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2018/
14146
Eikeland, O. (2003). Unmet challenges and unfulfilled promises in action
research, a reply to Davydd J. Greenwood and Bjorn Gustavsen. Concepts
and Transformation, 8, 265–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cat.8.3.07eik
Faye, C. (2012). American social psychology: Examining the contours of the
1970s crisis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomed-
ical Sciences, 43, 514 –521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.010
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Fried, S. B., Gumpper, D. C., & Allen, C. (1973). Ten years of social
psychology: Is there a growing commitment to field research? American
Psychologist, 28, 155–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034202
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 26, 309 –320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034436
Glassman, M., Erdem, G., & Bartholomew, M. (2013). Action research and its
history as an adult education movement for social change. Adult Education
Quarterly, 63, 272–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741713612471418
Gold, M. (1999). The complete social scientist. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
176 SIMON AND WILDER
Graham, M. H., & Dayton, P. K. (2002). On the evolution of ecological ideas:
Paradigms and scientific progress. Ecology, 83, 1481–1489. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1481:OTEOEI]2.0.CO;2
Green, C. (2018). APA division memberships through the years. The Psyborgs
Lab. Retrieved July 16, 2018, from https://psyborgs.github.io/projects/apa-
division-memberships/
Greene, M. T. (1997). What cannot be said in science. Nature, 388, 619 – 620.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/41642
Gustavsen, B. (2001). Theory and practice: The mediating discourse. In P.
Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry and practice (pp. 17–26). London, UK: Sage.
Habermas, J. (1970). On systemically distorted communication. Inquiry, 13,
205–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00201747008601590
Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., Serrano, K. J., Rice, E. L., Tsakrak-
lides, S. P., & Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review
of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science.
American Psychologist, 73, 532–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp
0000319
Heen, H. (2005). About feelings in action research, an experiment in first-
person inquiry. Action Research, 3, 263–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1476750305056002
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY:
Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
Helmreich, R. (1975). Applied social psychology: The unfulfilled promise.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 548 –560. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/014616727500100402
Hiebert, W., & Swan, D. (1999). Positively fit: A case study in community
development and the role of participatory action research. Community De-
velopment Journal: An International Forum, 34, 356 –364. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/cdj/34.4.356
Higbee, K. L., Millard, R. J., & Folkman, J. R. (1982). Social psychology
research during the 1970s. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8,
180 –183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616728281028
House, J. S. (1977). The three faces of social psychology. Sociometry, 40,
161–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3033519
House, J. S. (2008). Social psychology, social science, and economics: Twen-
tieth century progress and problems, twenty-first century prospects. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 71, 232–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0190
27250807100306
Hovland, C. I. (1951). Changes in attitude through communication. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 424 – 437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0055656
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and
persuasion, psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Kelman, H. C. (1967). Human use of human subjects: The problem of decep-
tion in social psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 1–11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0024072
Lachenmeyer, C. W. (1970). Experimentation: A misunderstood methodology
in psychological and social-psychological research. American Psychologist,
25, 617– 624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0029773
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social
Issues, 2, 34 – 46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
Lott, B., & Meluso, D. (1995). The social psychology of interpersonal dis-
crimination. New York, NY: Guilford.
Luo, M. (September 14, 2004). ‘Excuse me. May I have your seat?’ New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/nyregion/
excuse-me-may-i-have-your-seat.html?_r⫽0
Lynd-Stevenson, R. M. (2007). Concerns regarding the traditional paradigm
for causal research: The unified paradigm and causal research in scientific
psychology. Review of General Psychology, 11, 286 –304. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1089-2680.11.3.286
Manis, M. (1975). Comment on Gergen’s “Social psychology as history.”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 450 – 455. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/014616727500100207
Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist, the life and work of Kurt Lewin.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
McGuire, W. J. (1967). Some impending reorientations in social psychology:
Some thoughts provoked by Kenneth Ring. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 3, 124 –139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(67)90017-0
McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In E.
Aronson & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.,
Vol. 3, pp. 136 –314). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Milgram, S., & Sabini, J. (1978). On maintaining urban norms: A field
experiment in the subway. In A. Baum, J. E. Singer, & S. Valins (Eds.),
Advances in environmental psychology: The urban environment (Vol. 1, pp.
31– 40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mills, G. W., & Stone, S. J. (2012). Psychology of bias. Hauppauge, NY: Nova
Science.
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist,
38, 379 –387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379
Mudambi, R., Hannigan, T. J., & Kline, W. (2012). Advancing science on the
knife’s edge: Integration and specialization in management Ph.D. programs.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 83–105. http://dx.doi.org/10
.5465/amp.2011.0075
Myers, D. G., & Twenge, J. M. (2017). Social psychology. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Nater, C., & Zell, E. (2015). Accuracy of social perception: An integration and
review of meta-analyses. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9,
481– 494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12194
Passini, S., & Morselli, D. (2010). The obedience-disobedience dynamic and
the role of responsibility. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 20, 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.1000
Peters, M., & Robinson, V. (1984). The origins and status of action research.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 113–124. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/002188638402000203
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm
development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18,
599 – 620. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1993.9402210152
Pickren, W. (2007). Tension and opportunity in post–World War II American
psychology. History of Psychology, 10, 279 –299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1093-4510.10.3.279
Postholm, M. B. (2011). Teachers’ learning in a research and development
work project. Educational Action Research, 19, 231–244. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/09650792.2011.569237
Rammert, W. (2006). Two styles of knowing and knowledge regimes: Between
‘explicitation’ and ‘exploration’ under conditions of functional specializa-
tion or fragmental distribution (TUTS—Working Papers, 3–2004). Berlin,
Germany: Technische Universität Berlin, Fak. Retrieved from http://nbn-
resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-11790/
Rapoport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations,
23, 499 –513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872677002300601
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research:
Participative inquiry and practice. London, UK: Sage.
Reason, P., & Torbert, W. R. (2001). The action turn, toward a transformation
social science. Concepts and Transformation, 6, 1–37. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1075/cat.6.1.02rea
Ring, K. (1967). Experimental social psychology: Some sober questions about
some frivolous values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 113–
123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(67)90016-9
Ring, K., Wallston, K., & Corey, M. (1970). Mode of debriefing as a factor
affecting subjective reaction to a Milgram-type obedience experiment: An
ethical inquiry. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1, 67– 88.
Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem
hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 2, 40 – 62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532
7957pspr0201_3
Sanford, N. (1970). Whatever happened to action research? Journal of Social
Issues, 26, 3–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1970.tb01740.x
Schlenker, B. R. (1974). Social psychology and science. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 29, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035668
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2012). A history of modern psychology.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
 ACTION RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Silverman, I. (1971). Crisis in social psychology: The relevance of relevance.
American Psychologist, 26, 583–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0031445
Stadler, F. (2001). The Vienna circle: Studies in the origins, development, and
influence of logical empiricism. Vienna, Austria: Springer-Verlag.
Steiner, I. D. (1974). Whatever happened to the group in social psychology?
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 94 –108. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0022-1031(74)90058-4
Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits
of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582– 603. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392581
Timmers, M., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Gender differences
in motives for regulating emotions. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24, 974 –985. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167298249005
Torbert, W. R. (1998). Developing wisdom and courage in organizing and
sciencing. In S. Srivastva & D. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational wisdom
and executive courage (pp. 222–253). San Francisco, CA: New Lexington
Press.
177
Wegener, D. T., & Blankenship, K. L. (2007). Ecological validity. In R. F.
Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social psychology (pp.
275–277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/
9781412956253.n167
Zeigarnik, B. (1938). On finished and unfinished tasks. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A
source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 300 –314). London, UK: Routledge
& Kean Paul. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11496-025
Ziman, J. (1996). Is science losing its objectivity? Nature, 382, 751–754.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/382751a0
Received December 15, 2017
Revision received July 18, 2018
Accepted July 24, 2018 䡲