See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270802245

Critical issues in research design in action research in an SME development

context

Article  in  European Journal of Training and Development · June 2012

DOI: 10.1108/03090591211232075

CITATIONS READS

20 836

2 authors:

Helen Mcgrath Thomas O'Toole

University College Cork Waterford Institute of Technology
16 PUBLICATIONS   191 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   817 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

relationship strength View project

MNC Subsidiary Strategy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas O'Toole on 31 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of Training and Development
Emerald Article: Critical issues in research design in action research in
an SME development context
Helen McGrath, Thomas O'Toole

Article information:
To cite this document:
Helen McGrath, Thomas O'Toole, (2012),"Critical issues in research design in action research in an SME development context",
European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 36 Iss: 5 pp. 508 - 526
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090591211232075
Downloaded on: 06-06-2012
References: This document contains references to 54 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by WATERFORD INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help
for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

EJTD
36,5
508
Received 7 July 2011
Revised 11 November 2011
Accepted 2 February 2012
European Journal of Training and
Development
Vol. 36 No. 5, 2012
pp. 508-526
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2046-9012
DOI 10.1108/03090591211232075
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm
Critical issues in research design
in action research in an SME
development context
Helen McGrath
Department of Management and Marketing, University College Cork, Cork,
Ireland, and
Thomas O’Toole
School of Business, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose – The main aim of this paper is to develop guidelines on the critical issues to consider in
research design in an action research (AR) environment for SME network capability development.
Design/methodology/approach – The issues in research design for AR studies are developed from
the authors’ experience in running learning sets but, in particular, by an SME owner-manager learning
set established to develop and test theory about network capability.
Findings – The authors present a comprehensive set of research design issues for AR across seven
areas – sampling; the facilitator; learning set interaction; set design; measurement; data collection
decisions; and data analysis.
Research limitations/implications – While action research is inherently situational in approach,
for those researchers wishing to use it to develop or test theory, the authors’ framework will provide a
benchmark for research design decisions.
Practical implications – The methodology is ideally suited to knowledge exchange settings and for
collecting research data in such contexts and, if used in this way, could be an incentive to encourage
more academic engagement with practice. Management and organisational development using AR is
often reported on, but rarely in an SME context. The paper provides an example of a study conducted
in this setting.
Originality/value – The main contribution of this article is to present an implementation framework
for research design using AR. In addition, given policy goals now often require firms to collaborate
with each other and in partnership with training organisations and universities, it makes sense to
develop a mechanism to enhance the understanding of research methodologies that can be used in
these contexts.
Keywords Action research (AR), Network capability, SMEs’ organisational development,
Research design, Action interventions, Research, Small to medium-sized enterprises
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Action research (AR) is a methodology used to embed learning into practice as a core
objective. The methodology relies on an action-reflection cycle to achieve its learning
outcomes and is particularly suited to executive education. It is useful in business as it
links directly to action, involves self development, and can engage problems that
require significant change in organisations but also at an individual, “mindset”, level.
AR as a research methodology has the dual aim to embed learning into practice, to
enact change and improve a situation while formulating public knowledge
contributing to theories of action. The method was employed by the authors when they Critical issues in
were trying to develop a model for business-to-business network capability research design
enhancement for SMEs. As an action orientated methodology, AR’s application
mirrors the learning preferences of SMEs (Stewart and Alexander, 2006), that is, being
flexible (Van Gils, 2000), context-dependent and experientially based (Rae and
Carswell, 2000). However, as appropriate as the method is for both business
development training and research, the authors found no guidelines on the critical 509
issues to consider in research design in an AR environment for managerial capability
development. Therefore, the core contribution of this paper is to provide full detail on
the application of the methodology, in this context, that should be useful to both
researchers and to practice.
This study recognised the need to apply a research design process, a set of steps, to
ensure rigour within the learning set so that AR for capability building can be
systematic and replicable. While AR is inherently qualitative in approach, for those
researchers wishing to use it to develop or test theory, our framework will provide a
benchmark for research design decisions. This paper recognises the many faces of
action research and will focus on a research process for more technically orientated
action research. The methodology is ideally suited to knowledge exchange settings and
for collecting research data in such contexts and, for example, if used in this way, could
be an incentive to encourage more academic engagement with practice. Providing a
road map of the steps involved in the AR process for SME network capability
development also has important implications for policy as many EU economic
development programmes incorporate an AR element into their design through
“learning sets”. These programmes, similar to this research, often commence with a
predetermined research problem that SMEs recognise within their own organisation
and thus wish to engage with the programme to assist them to solve these problems.
The framework provided in this paper may support the set-up and the evaluation of
such programmes. It may also impact executive education policy given AR’s
attractiveness as a development tool for SME learning, particularly as little has been
published on the implementation of the methodology as it applies to small firms.

Action research (AR)

AR is an action-oriented research activity (Park, 2001, p. 81), an inquiry strategy that
integrates experience, action and reflection (Reason, 1994) fostering collaboration
among its participants. Defined as “a participatory, democratic process concerned with
developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes” (Reason
and Bradbury, 2001, p. 1), AR is concerned with bridging the gap between research and
action and hence theory and practice (Brinberg and Hirschman, 1986). AR is a form of
experimental research that focuses on monitoring and evaluating the effects of the
researcher’s direct actions in practice within a participatory community with the goal
of improving the performance quality of the community or of an area of concern
(Reason and Bradbury, 2001). But solely improving practice is not significant unless
this research can build, inform, and test social theory (Reason and Bradbury, 2008).
Therefore, AR is intended to advance knowledge and solve practical problems having
a real world effect which can be demanding as researchers are expected to both develop
knowledge and work towards positive, practical change. Argyris and Schön (1991,
p. 86) refer to this as the “double burden” referring to the action/research debate which
EJTD sets a stage for a conflict between rigour and relevance as, like most researchers, action
36,5 theorists seek to observe, analyse, and develop theories of social practices that can be
applied beyond the immediate research context. To meet all of these demands, a
research design must be followed and be visible. The focus of this paper is thus on the
research design side of AR for capability development rather than on its role in action,
or the nature of the academic study running parallel with it.
510 AR stems from a family of research methodologies which aim to pursue action and
research outcomes simultaneously (Susman and Evered, 1978; Holter and
Schwartz-Barcott, 1993; Reason and Bradbury, 2001; Coughlan and Coghlan, 2002;
Coghlan and Brannick, 2010). In recognising that the field of action-orientated research
has become disparate, Raelin (2009) and Coghlan (2010) present a comprehensive
review of action modalities seeking commonalities across them. According to Raelin
(2009, p. 18) a common theme among the modalities is “planned engagement and
collective reflection on that experience can expand and even create knowledge while at
the same time serving to improve practice”. Coghlan (2010) highlights the importance
of the selection of an appropriate action modality for research with the choice
dependent on context, researcher/member relationship, the structuring of the inquiry
and the dual outcomes of action research for practice and knowledge. On that basis,
this study employs the action research modality which comes with its own set of
“choice points” (Reason, 2006) which must be made explicit. Reason and Bradbury
(2001, p. 27) suggest “the primary ‘rule’ in AR practice is to be aware of the choices one
is making and their consequences” as “action research is a messy, somewhat
unpredictable process, and a key part of the inquiry is a recording of decisions made in
the face of this messiness” (Herr and Anderson, 2005: 78).
The degree to which researchers position themselves as “insiders” (Coghlan and
Brannick, 2010) or “friendly outsiders” (Greenwood and Levin, 1998) is an important
choice point and will determine how researchers frame epistemological,
methodological, and ethical issues in the research having massive implications for
research design. As can be seen in Table I, Cornwall (1996, p. 95) notes that action
methods may be used in a wide range of contexts according to quite different agendas.
Cornwall (1996) outlines six modes of participation ranging from cooption, which may
involve local people taking part in other people’s project, to collective action which is
research rooted in local knowledge, orientated at empowering local people to enact
their own solutions. This continuum requires different types of AR labeled A, B and C
in Table I which do not vary in methodologies, rather in the application of the
methodology as a result of underlying assumptions and worldviews of the participants
(Grundy, 1982). Table I examines the potential levels of involvement of the researcher
and participants in the design and implementation of AR.
Technical forms of AR (Type A) are essentially orientated towards functional
improvement and problem solving, measured in terms of its success in changing
particular outcomes of practices (Kemmis, 2006, p. 95). With this type of AR, the
researcher can conceive the research question and design an intervention with or for a
group who cooperate with the researcher, are involved in and contribute data to a
process which could have positive repercussions for them. The researcher is in charge
of the change process and is working to cultivate goodwill with the group. The
intention of the researcher is to test a particular intervention to see how effective it is to
solve a problem in a specific situation. The practitioners agree to facilitate with the
 Relationship of
research and
action to local
Mode of participation Involvement of local people people Action research types – A, B, C

Cooption Token; representatives are chosen, but no real On A – Technical (Grundy, 1982; Carr and Kemmis, 1986)
input or power The scientific-technical view of problem solving
(McKernan, 1991)
Compliance Tasks are assigned, with incentives; outsiders For The positive approach (McCutcheon and Jurg, 1990)
decide agenda and direct the process The technical collaborative approach (Holter and
Schwartz-Barcott, 1993)
Consultation Local opinions asked, outsiders analyse and For/with B. Practical (Grundy, 1982; Carr and Kemmis, 1986)
decide on a course of action Practical-deliberative action research (McKernan,
1991)
Cooperation Local people work together with outsiders to With Interpretive (McCutcheon and Jurg, 1990)
determine priorities, responsibility remains with Mutual collaborative approach (Holter and Schwartz-
outsiders for directing the process Barcott, 1993)
Co-learning Local people and outsider share their knowledge, With/by C. Emancipatory (Grundy, 1982; Carr and Kemmis,
to create new understanding, and work together to 1986)
form action plans, with outsider facilitation Critical-emancipatory action research (McKernan,
1991)
Critical Science (McCutcheon and Jurg, 1990)
Collective action Local people set their own agenda and mobilise to By Enhancement approach (Holter and Schwartz-Barcott,
carry it out, in the absence of outside initiators 1993)
and facilitators
Source: Adapted from Cornwall, 1996, p. 96
research design

AR types
511

Table I.
Critical issues in
EJTD implementation of the intervention (Holter and Schwartz-Barcott, 1993) with
36,5 communication flows primarily between the facilitator and the group. The
researcher is usually an expert and an outsider to the research situation with
change generally imposed after gaining the cooperation of practitioners (Clark, 2000, p.
194). This type of AR reflects Cornwall’s cooption and compliance modes of
participation whereby tasks and interventions are assigned with outsiders essentially
512 directing the process. It promotes efficient and effective practice and may be useful for
capability development. With interventions planned and outsiders directing the
process, it is possible to make knowledge claims that are generalisable or transferrable
beyond the immediate context/setting.
Practical or iterative AR (Type B) has the technical aspirations for change, but it
also aims to inform the practical decision making of practitioners (Kemmis, 2006: 95).
With this type of action research, the researcher and members collaborate together to
identify problems, determine solutions and evaluate outcomes. This working together
approach leads to a better understanding of the underlying problems and their causes
with the researcher and the practitioners coming together to identify possible
interventions (Holter and Schwartz-Barcott, 1993, p. 301). This approach is descriptive
and can lead to the development of new theory (Clark, 2000, p. 194) as the problem is
defined after dialogue with the researcher and the practitioners and a mutual
understanding is reached. This form of AR seeks to improve practice through the
application of the personal wisdom of the participants (Grundy, 1982) allowing for a
more flexible approach in design and delivery. As McCutcheon and Jung (1990, p. 146)
state “indicative of this flexibility is the frequent use of ‘interpretive’ as an umbrella
term that comfortably accommodates interactive and phenomenological perspectives”.
Practical AR involves local people or practitioners where opinions are asked and the
research is carried out in consultation or cooperation with them (Cornwall, 1996).
Emancipatory AR aims not only at improving the self understanding of
practitioners, but also at assisting practitioners to arrive at a critique of their social
or educational work or work setting (Kemmis, 2006). This approach has two main
goals. It increases the closeness between the actual problems encountered by
practitioners in a specific setting and the theory used to explain and resolve the
problem (Holter and Schwartz-Barcott, 1993). It also raises corporate awareness in
practitioners regarding their underlying values and beliefs, both personal and
collective that are manifested within the organisational culture and may impact on the
problems identified (Clark, 2000). It promotes emancipatory praxis in the participating
practitioners; that is, it promotes a critical consciousness which exhibits itself in
political as well as practical action to promote change (Grundy, 1982). The
enhancement or emancipatory approach to AR is in line with Cornwall’s co-learning
and collective action modes of participation where knowledge is shared and agendas
and action plans are set together.
Recent research suggests that many action oriented modalities co-exist (Raelin,
2009; Coghlan, 2010). However, the core contribution of this research is to provide full
detail on the application of more technical forms of AR as indicated in Table I as we
were interested in research outcomes and had a predetermined research problem for
the participants. To date, the core issues in each stage of such a design have not been
specified as they will be here. The popularity of AR has been attributed to the
contextual relevance of the methodology and data stemming from its use and the
trustworthiness of the data collected with the goal of improving and changing a Critical issues in
situation with research participants actively involved in the knowledge production research design
process (Bray et al., 2000). Ironically its main critics cite the same points with action
orientated techniques regularly dismissing them as not been scientific. While this is a
common criticism of many more interpretive methodologies used for theory building,
AR with its interventions is usually seen for its change or consultancy capability and
not as a serious research methodology in the traditional scientific sense. Hopefully, this 513
paper will demonstrate its potential as a research method for theory building. We
believe that researchers using this method can increase its acceptability as such by
making clear the choices made at each stage of the design process. The reader of the
results can then judge, depending on his/her philosophical stance, the value of the new
knowledge created. The philosophic basis and justification for use of action oriented
methods is well articulated and not the focus of the current work (Susman and Evered,
1978; Reason and Bradbury, 2008; Ozanne and Saatcioglu, 2008). This paper concerns
itself with research design and the delineation of choices, or making clear these choices,
at each stage of the process. In doing this, it should improve the use of the method
especially among non specialists, and enable first-time AR users with its guidelines.

Action research (AR) as a research design to solve SME problems

The authors started their research with an unresolved problem with little theory, could
a network capability (ability to develop relationships with other firms to combine
resources across these firms to solve common problems or grow the business) be
developed for SMEs? This was an obvious question that suited AR. Yet, on
commencement of the research journey, there was plenty of guidance and definitions
of, but little on implementation or using the methodology for research. The authors
have extensive experience in projects with learning sets and with active-oriented
approaches to collaborating with SMEs to solve their problems. In Ireland and in many
other countries, governments are striving to facilitate SME growth believing that the
sector has the capacity to rejuvenate stagnating economies. To achieve this,
government agencies need to encourage SMEs to change and develop. Action research
is one mechanism for embedding learning in practice via self-development to make this
happen while simultaneously adding to academic knowledge. AR has rarely been
employed in an SME context which is surprising given the suitability of the
methodology to SME research. SMEs in action scenarios can learn from both their own
and others exposure to real life situations allowing them the opportunity to interact
with other SMEs in a non-adversarial way (Davey et al., 2001). It provides a safe place
to explore self and work, support, share problems and provides a think tank (Bourner
and Frost, 1996). AR offers reciprocity as real benefits are created for each participant
while contributing to knowledge. Its emphasis on reflective practice (Schön, 1983) is a
core benefit as it assists SMEs to disengage with the business (Thorpe et al., 2005) and
step away from the treadmill of day-to-day activities. AR provides a forum that forces
such reflection assisting SMEs who are regularly branded as “doers”. Hence, rather
than being pre-occupied with short-term issues, participants are empowered to address
strategic issues (Stewart and Alexander, 2006).
Ford and Ogilive (1997) highlight that action is particularly appropriate in
ambiguous circumstances where interpretations of information is evolving and more
qualitative. With SME environments described as complex and changing (Carson and
EJTD Gilmore, 2000), the just-in-time learning approach suits SMEs as much of their learning
is context-dependent and experientially based (Rae and Carswell, 2000). This reflects a
36,5 movement among researchers towards conceptualising SME development as a
“process” (Cope, 2005) rather than a static input-output model, where development is
conceptualised as something given to individuals and assessed by before and after
measures (Clarke et al., 2006). However, AR is not without its issues. A difficulty with
514 AR is that it is often directed at problems that “hurt”, requiring behavioural change or
change in mindset. Additionally, the problems the authors were trying to address
required firms to work in a collaborative way which challenged their businesses very
reason for being – the do it for ourselves, independent mentality. SMEs
characteristically fear opportunistic behaviour from competitors and need confidence
that other firms will be cooperative and not take competitive advantage of the
knowledge exchanged (Birchall et al., 2007).
For this study a network was created in Ireland by the authors comprising eight
individual SMEs that met the following key criteria: less than 50 employees, past
participants in an entrepreneurship program, non-competitors, and in operation for
more than 1 year. Each company had a knowledge-based, innovative component and
operated within the business-to-business sector in Information and Communications
Technology, electronics, consumer goods, or internationally traded services. Six 3-hour
network meetings were conducted over the course of a ten month period to analyse
network capability and assist the SME in their development of same. The setting
allowed for each case company to learn from and share experiences with others
allowing network capability building through iterative cycles best captured by the
authors through direct, longitudinal, involvement in the process enabling the authors
to obtain a sounder understanding about the content and process of network capability
development. Aspects of the data collection approach are presented in the next section
in addition to issues that could be addressed, in AR design, but were not foreseen by
the authors or arise from their experience in other projects.

Designing the AR process

This section will provide a comprehensive guide for technically orientated AR
implementation including the critical issues to consider in research design. Issues
regarding sampling; the facilitator; learning set interaction; set design; measurement;
data collections decisions; and data analysis, developed from the current study and the
authors’ experience in running action research projects are detailed and summarised in
Table II.

Sampling: design and group issues

The first set of issues we present are those to do with the make-up of the sample both
its design and related group dynamics, see, Table II. From a design perspective, the
characteristics of the firms chosen have to be decided, for example, industry area, size,
product or technology domains. AR is often designed to address particular social and
structural problems thus, there is a need for participants to engage with the problem,
accept it as significant (Mumford, 1995) and be willing to engage in cooperative
learning sets to achieve its resolution. The participants were motivated to participate in
this study as they strived for growth and viewed this programme as a potential
trajectory to achieve it. The authors prepared notes for encouraging participation and
to minimise the risk of bias. Detailed notes also helped reduce pre-programme feelings
 Learning set Data collection
Sample Facilitator interaction Set design Measurement decisions Data analysis
Design issues Preparation Participant and Experimental issues Within method Learning set Data set
facilitator
Firm In depth knowledge of Stimulus role Control set Separate out concept Session plan and Diaries of participants
characteristics business context around theme Pre and post session being measured across interventions Facilitator’s reflection
Relatedness to Sectoral knowledge Have interventions interviews different sessions Diaries by Observer’s reflection
the problem from reports etc. ready but not lead Discussion boards or Multiple measurement participants (off-line/ Recordings of
Prepare notes for Status difference discussion telephone interaction effect on-line) meetings
encouraging between researcher Able to relate between participants Researcher involved Facilitator’s diary and Interviews
participation and business person practice problems Exit interviews Group effect (being reflections Company information
Challenge to Awareness of to theory part of) Observer’s reflections gathered and
explain new business problems of Control over- Audio and video contextual reports
theory rationale group dominant recording of meetings Logs of telephone
Time frame of Emotional empathy participant conversations/e-
commitment Dry run with other Move to “go deeper” mails/texts
experts Developing trust Other measurements
Session plans taken
validated if used for
theory development
Group issues In action Among participants Learning set issues Outside/field effects Learning set effects Analysis
Prior knowledge Establishing Rule of mutual Number in set Initial benchmark Participants’ Use of technology
of each other credibility respect Observer in set effect interactions with each Development of codes
businesses? Tools for dealing with Sharing of Location Compare to others other and facilitator Classification of data
Similar business first day silence and problems openly Physical space Development and Interviews before, across themes
area? ice breaking Ethical boundaries Session plan designed change effects likely to during and after Tracing evidence
Need for prior First meeting of around learning cycle be interdependent Specific changes in right through data set
action learning learning set versus Case rationale business practice Looking for
experience others Time frame may “even evidenced confounding evidence
If theory development, out” effects of Revisit for Separating research
then use of experts to exogenous variables longitudinal effects from learning
validate interventions
Facilitator tool kit
(listening, probing,
soliciting inputs)
“Classroom” aids
Focus back on issue
research design

issues
AR research design
515

Table II.
Critical issues in
EJTD such as skepticism and nerves. A further issue for technical AR that is trying to
36,5 develop or test new theory is to explain it to the participants as the researcher is going
to be bringing concepts and frameworks into the interaction. This becomes a bigger
challenge when theory is further developed into propositions as you are placing more
structure on what happens when the participants interact. The authors faced this
challenge and the idea of network capability was presented to the participants
516 including the potential value that would ensue through engaging with the group. It
was important that each participant took ownership of the problem, saw the link
between network capability and growth, and were willing to take risks, transform their
mindset, practices and processes through cooperation with each other to determine if
network capability could impact the growth of their business. This was not easy as the
businesses did not initially see how they could develop their businesses through
connecting to the right partners. In retrospect the challenge we presented went to the
heart of why they went into business in the first place – to be independent. Clearly,
their preference towards independence posed issues for cooperation as did their limited
worldview of networks and the means through which they could connect with others.
The researchers had previous experience in the field of research and knew this was
going to be a major challenge so had to really “sell” the benefits in advance of a new
way of seeing a business. Time commitments are significant to business and it is
important to be upfront regarding the time group sessions will take including travel,
the time they will need to put into action to get benefits from the solution to the
problem and the time commitment if participant diaries were included. For this study,
the authors attained prior commitment to a ten month period with group meetings for
approximately three hours every month and a half.
In relation to the group sample-related issues, the prior knowledge needed of the
others’ business may be a key issue. AR participants do not need to have prior
knowledge of one another or to work in the same area or organisation, but they should
be of a broadly similar level and be able to understand one another’s worlds
(Grzybowski, 2008). Security can be an issue for participants but anonymity can be
assured and signed off. A more difficult issue is whether there is need for prior action
research experience by the participants as commitment to action is essential for AR
success. The authors used participants who had been on previous programmes that
would have elements of a similar design so it was not difficult to develop a readiness
for action learning. Potential concerns that the programme would be accompanied by a
relatively high level of personal and professional exposure (Bourner and Frost, 1996)
must be met, if appropriate, at this early stage. Action through interventions and
working in cooperation with others in a learning set environment requires participants
to take control of their own learning and growth and to take risks. Set members are
active participants in the process and must want to be part of it; compulsion does not
work as the success of the programme relies very much on learners being motivated to
learn for themselves (O’Hara et al., 1996). Clarity on the core choices made by the
researcher at this level will make the research visible and more replicable, and
strengthen the objectivity of the research.

The facilitator: preparation and in action

The facilitator of the learning set is normally the researcher. The researcher must
recognise the multiple roles that s/he plays in the research and this complexity needs to
be addressed rather than rendered invisible. The researcher can prepare by having an Critical issues in
in-depth knowledge of the business context, for example, economic trends that may research design
affect the business type, and for researchers using AR for theory building, an extensive
literature review, see, Table II. Taking the authors’ study as exemplar of the issues,
documents they obtained included company and product brochures, presentation
materials, business plans and company information on web sites. This information
was significant as the SME companies were diverse and for the most part highly 517
specialised stemming from high technology backgrounds. Therefore, reading such
materials was imperative for a full understanding of their operations. Time must be
spent framing the focus of the research and agreeing on the research questions as good
action research will provide sufficient literature to frame the initial problem and
anticipate directions that the research might take (Herr and Anderson, 2005) hence,
academic journal articles regarding SME network capability were analysed in addition
to sectoral knowledge from business reports. Often there is quite a status difference
between the researcher and business person due to age, experience, or perceived
expertise of academics which needs to be addressed by the researcher in advance.
Background research will help the facilitator to be aware of the business problems of
the group at a micro level which can feed into emotional empathy and in this case
highlighted that the authors were not out of touch with reality. Obviously, empathy
could easily lead to bias but, in this case, it is more linked to getting information
flowing freely. Other preparation strategies for facilitators which we employed
included having a dry run with experts.
In action, establishing credibility is helped by preparation combined with the
facilitator’s knowledge and expertise. Credibility was enhanced by the authors through
pre-programme interviews which established a baseline and interest in the topic. Many
tools exist for dealing with first day silence and ice breaking. Introductions and simple
tasks can be used and the facilitator has to set the ground rules and enable sharing
among group members and a receptive capacity for ideas. This receptive capacity is
about being open to question and challenge for change (Florén and Tell, 2004). In
addition to the session plan, if theory development is the objective of the research, any
interventions around the theory will need to be validated in advance – why these
interventions? How do these indicators uncover the concepts being addressed? Similar
to focus group data collection techniques, the facilitator has a toolkit of aids which rely
on interview experience which is developed over time – listening, probing, solicitating
input – but this should not bias the conversation. Classroom aids are available
including technology, visual aids and active short work assignments designed around
the problem. One of the early classroom aids we used was asking participants to draw
network maps to illustrate their connections and through this process create other
access points for action before the next session. When any group of business people are
together the interaction can wander to immediate and general issues not of concern to
the research. While this is a part of the ebb and flow of the session, continual focus
back on the problem must be made by the facilitator.

Learning set interaction: participant and facilitators and among participants

From a research standpoint planning for the interaction in the learning set can take
place at two levels – between the participants and facilitator, and among the
participants as presented in Table II. Findings suggest that within the learning set it is
EJTD important for the facilitator to stimulate a discussion around the theme. The
36,5 interventions at this point are ready but they do not lead the discussion as the author
allows the participants to freely discuss their perception of the issue. The researcher
must be able to relate practice problems to theory both within the session and within
their own writing. For example, the authors had materials prepared in advance
including examples of underdeveloped and developed networks to show the
518 participants visual representations of how change can happen. Deflecting dominant
participants to enable everyone in the group to contribute will be necessary. The
researcher can move to “go deeper” should a participant relate interesting knowledge
relating to the theme and to assist the participants to “unpack” the relevance of their
actions. This requires a skilled facilitator as the whole objective of structuring a
research design is to get better quality information. Trust is the cornerstone of AR,
trust that the facilitator has the needs of the group at heart and not purely academic
practice for publication and confidence in their worth. Trust is also essential between
participants for open problem sharing as it is only through airing problems that they
can be worked on and discussed by the group. Thus, a careful negotiating and
establishing of trusted relationships is probably the key ingredient in building a
research endeavour that works for all involved (Herr and Anderson, 2005). The authors
developed some trust in advance through the interviews where they were able to spell
out the ground rules and develop a confidence in the process.
Each participant must understand early that they face similar issues in their
businesses to facilitate the feeling of shared problems and an elimination of isolation.
This enhances group cohesion and the building of mutual and complementary levels of
respect which are important for knowledge sharing within the group. Debriefing was a
feature of the authors’ approach as some of the sessions challenged what the SMEs
were doing (their assumptions about how business operates) and gave an alternative
way of structuring how the business could be run. Some of these debates got quite
heated among the group. Some ethical issues are prevalent among participants
including respect for each other’s views, prevention of harm and assurances of
confidentiality or anonymity. Managing interaction in the learning set can seem
obvious but is hard to do in practice.

Set design: experimental and learning set issues

There are a whole range of issues concerning how learning sets are designed and
made-up that can be decided in advance by the researcher depending on the nature of
the problem to be solved by the research, as summarised in Table II. In terms of the
experimental issues there is an array of design options that are utilised. The authors
used a control group of firms from another country with similar characteristics as our
learning set as a comparison set to control for other things that may have caused a
change in the group other than the intervention. As an independent method, interviews
were used to strengthen the research validity and to develop an understanding of the
respondent’s world which matched the purpose of the research, to develop new theory
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2002). Interviews need to have a guide which will be more
structured if the research has a framework that is measurable in advance that is a
predetermined theory. In this case, although an interview protocol was devised, the
question structure was loose, allowing for variations to emerge on a case-by-case basis
as the authors were unaware of the level of understanding that the participants had in
terms of their networks. All interviews and sessions were conducted with the Critical issues in
owner/managers, as, due to the nature of the exercise, they were the actors who could research design
make immediate decisions within the company and were responsible for the
organisation’s network activity. Pre-learning set interviews are useful for
benchmarking the firms and the between set interviews are good for underlying
progress. Also exit interviews can be conducted to act as a final benchmark. All
interviews were taped and transcribed immediately following the interviews. However, 519
doing all these interviews may create a problem for the research in terms of the testing
itself causing the change in the firms rather than the intervention. Regarding validity,
the authors asked the participants to read their interview scripts to ensure that stories
had not been misinterpreted or important facts omitted. To enable firms to work
together between the meetings of the learning set technology can be used such as
setting an expectation that participants would contact each other by mobile telephone
or setting up an on-line discussion board. This exchange can be monitored and
incorporated into the data analysis.
The classic action research design contains six to eight participants in a set (Pedler
et al., 2005). This number ensures all voices can be heard, gives great variety of
experiences to the group, means that all options and opportunities are examined and
current thinking is challenged allowing for each person to reflect on their own
strategies and plans. A critical friend may also be present allowing for field notes and
data analysis scripts to be verified. Critical friends, usually peers or colleagues, often
push researchers to another level of understanding as they ask researchers to make
explicit what they may understand on a more tacit level (Anderson et al., 1994). The
authors had 8 firms in the set and used a critical friend who was well known and
respected by all the participants. Post each session the critical friend read and added to
the researchers’ field notes and validated their key points. The location of the AR
sessions can change from session to session however we used a room at the University
to conduct all sessions. The physical space should be, and was comfortable with chairs
distributed in a circular fashion so that everyone could clearly see each other. A flip
chart was used to jot down ideas and plot the intervention, reflections and actions.
With AR the participants are expecting positive learning outcomes such as change and
development within their organisations as opposed to being passive recipients of a
learning process (Kolb and Fry, 1975). Concept discussion is followed by the group
determining the goals they would like to achieve in the session. Action is then followed
by reflection and future action as the cycle continues. Reflection at this point is
continual and occurs at multiple levels with each SME reflecting on their own
experiences of action and on the actions of other participants in the group.

Measurement: within method and outside/field effects

The main issues in the measurement phase of the research design process are outlined
in Table II. Trying to get to the core of what you are measuring is the goal of all
research for it to add value. In AR, awareness of potential issues allows strategies to be
developed for reducing their impact and evaluating their effect on the process.
Depending on the complexity of the problem being researched and its associated
planned interventions, the researcher may need to divide the aspects of the problem it
is researching across the sessions. The simplest rule is to leave the actions that require
deeper action to later session and get some quick wins early which will act as an
EJTD encouragement for participants to move deeper. The more you measure the
36,5 participants using interviews or during sessions the likelihood of the results being
attributed to the very fact of testing increases rather than to the interventions. Using
interventions that really measured the process of capability building made progress
easy to demonstrate and kept data rolling in which revealed, on continued analysis, the
processes of network capability development. For this research, measurement was a
520 major consideration and was a struggle to deal with. We attempted to separate out the
concepts across the sessions of which we had six in total. As an example of an
intervention, based on the network pictures literature (Ford et al., 2003; Ford and
Redwood, 2005), the first intervention involved network mapping, whereby the
entrepreneurs discussed their network ties and depicted these connections graphically.
The rationale was to enhance the entrepreneurs’ awareness of the multiplexity of
network connections to which they are and could be embedded. For this session, we
brought in a map of our own networks and discussed the interconnectedness and
embeddedness of ties. To gauge the degree to which awareness was present for each
SME, we analysed the findings using the indicators such as network composition,
density and diversity (Granovetter, 1973, 1985; Dubini and Aldrich, 1991)
characterising different embedded relationships. The SMEs also analysed each
other’s maps and reflected on the types of connections that they deemed important.
They altered their maps post reflection and through this and other interventions both
the SMEs and the authors were able to develop a picture of the process of network
capability development. However, this process is complex so we can only claim to have
made a start. The research did not lead to any rapid change which implies the
measurement was appropriate. Getting the participants to action change at a mindset
level is very difficult and led us to continue to question the value of our underlying
research question.
The fact that the researcher is involved as facilitator also brings a chance of bias
therefore, it is important to address how one’s bias is dealt with in the research. We
enter research with a perspective drawn from our own unique experiences and so we
articulate to the best of our ability these perspectives or biases and build a critical
reflexivity into the research process. Hence bias and subjectivity are natural and
acceptable but must be critically examined rather than ignored (Herr and Anderson,
2005). Methods used for dealing with this is the researcher keeping a diary of what they
thought happened during sessions and comparing this to the taped transcripts. If there
is a major difference then the researcher may be over-influenced by his/her worldview.
The very fact of having a group makes a group measurement error possible. Being
involved in a group and being chosen for same can bias participants’ reaction and lead
the results to be attributed to belonging to the group rather than by the intervention.
This effect is reduced somewhat in a longitudinal study which may even out this effect
as it wears off. The field experimental nature of AR can lead to additional issues with
measurement. If the researcher decides to benchmark the firms in the beginning, this
measurement can lead the firms to take action around the theme and again take away
from the intervention. Each firm in the group making inter-firm comparisons can also
have a biasing effect and may speed up the effect of a change that would not be
matched in another situation. Separating out complex measurement interdependencies
may be a challenge with AR depending on the problem. For example, trying to
establish the association between the development of a process and the change taking
place in an organisation may be overlapping and intertwined in an AR setting and Critical issues in
might require subsequent research to sort out how they were related. The richness of research design
AR is its case context but is this always a special case? We believe that if a rigorous
design is followed then the learning from an AR study is applicable to other situations.

Data collection decisions: learning set and learning set effects

The authors favour collecting data from a wide variety of sources and in different ways 521
to provide for richer data and an element of triangulation in data analysis. There are
two types of data collected in AR – one outside the learning set and the other in it.
Many of the sources of data and methods of collection have been commented on in
other sections, see, Table II, as our aim was to show the possibilities of the AR method
viewed in its totality.
Session plans and interventions provide the framework for data collection in the
sets themselves. Data can be collected using a variety of tools and techniques with
participant diaries representing a popular means of data collection. Diaries can be
written either off-line/on-line, their aim is to provide a record of participants’
experiences, activities and learning within the set and assist each participant to reflect,
confront questions and dilemmas to find meaning in each situation. Although diaries
are effective and represent a considerable source of learning, as with this study
business participants can be slow to engage with them due to time commitment and
daily pressures. Incorporating diaries into the AR programme and making them an
integral part of the AR process through group discussion may assist with this
(Mumford, 1997). Researcher diaries are useful to generate a history of the project,
provide rich data on the research process and provide data for reflection. They assist
the researcher to reflect on their practices and discourses, empowering them to share
their experiences with peers. They represent an accumulation of knowledge about the
effects of their action and can be viewed by the critical friend. The facilitator’s diaries
and observations kept our aspiration to create dramatic new theory in check! Our
progress was slow and our frustrations visible and thus taken into account. Facilitator
reflections are also important forms of data as they must reflect on participant change
and development, the AR process, in addition to the development of the group as a
whole. They act as a check on the researcher’s assumptions about what is happening
when compared to the data coming from the raw recordings of the set.
Audio and video recording of meetings are an option for action researchers to
ensure no information is missed allowing the researcher to revisit the learning set
during the analysis stage of the research. Participants’ interactions with each other and
with the facilitator are a source of data, especially, on behaviour, for example,
resistance to change. The authors made audio recordings of the learning sets. It would
have been useful to have video for look back at behavior reactions which become
important in the analysis but this was not possible. In a business context a researcher
may want to see the changes in the business for themselves and collect hard data on
implementation, for example, on sales or customer account management. Revisiting
sites to capture longitudinal data are another possibility given the objective of AR.

Data analysis: data set and analysis

Hopefully the reader, at this stage, will have a sense of the volume of possible data or
the data set available from AR as illustrated in Table II. This data set can facilitate any
EJTD amount of cross referencing to help answer the research problem described at the
36,5 outset of the project or that emerges from it. Yin (2003) and Eisenhardt (1989) view the
resulting data analysis as consisting of examining, categorising, tabulating, testing or
otherwise recombining evidence to address the proposition of a study. These authors
have attempted to put a structure on multiple sourced qualitative data which can be
applied to AR analysis. One of the aspects of AR that it shares in common with other
522 action and longitudinal methods is the overlap of data analysis with data collection.
Field notes, documentary sources and interview scripts are an important means of
accomplishing this overlap in addition to diaries, reflections, meeting recordings and
communication logs. Through regular review of the data, important issues raised by
the participants can be identified and analysed. Reflective remarks and memos inserted
by the researchers during the project can facilitate reflection and analytic insight and
assist in identifying themes, developing categories, and exploring similarities and
differences in the data, and relationships among them. Additionally, through overlap of
data analysis with data collection and the freedom to make adjustments during the
data collection process the researcher can be in a position to clarify issues with the
participants as the study progresses. Action research data can be analysed in a
multitude of ways and at many different levels. Each individual participant can be
analysed in isolation, the problems they dealt with and the learning that stemmed for
them throughout the process. Group development can be analysed; the effects of being
within the set and the collective achievement of the set. In addition, the programme can
be evaluated as a whole, its value, its high and low points. Longitudinal organisational
analysis may gauge the effects of the programme and its long-term effect opening up
many questions for researchers to ask themselves prior to analysis. Suitable
technology may make data analysis more efficient for both qualitative and quantitative
data, particularly where vast volumes of raw data exist. Computer packages can
facilitate the development of categories and codes to organise the data and develop
theory frameworks. The authors used the NVivo computer software programme in the
research process as a support system to assist the managing and analysing of the large
volume of complex data attained during the course of the study. All documents,
including transcripts, field notes and any other relevant written materials, were
imported to NVivo software. These documents formed a document system providing
the basis for the processing and maintenance of all data where appropriate (Richards
and Richards, 1994). Initial lists of codes/themes were developed based on the
predetermined conceptual framework which were then honed through the continued
data collection and analysis. All data were classified under a theme for further analysis
further tracing evidence right through the data set and, to ensure reliability, the critical
friend followed the trail of evidence established by the authors during the data
collection and analysis phases of the research study. The current study started with
finding that AR is used more for learning than for research and we, of course, as
educators are interested in the learning process but had other over-riding objectives in
theory building to guide the research.

Conclusion
The use of AR in business research is attractive given its link to practice and the way it
can bridge the perceived gap between academic writing and practice. Its use has been
confined to interventions to aid management and organisational development and to
solve business problems rather than research for theory building perhaps because of Critical issues in
its action nature it is seen as unscientific. The core contribution of this paper is to research design
address this problem through the provision of guidelines in the critical issues in
research design in a technical AR environment. This may act as a useful guide to
conduct action research for theory building given that design is crucial for success.
This paper addresses seven stages in AR research design – sampling; the facilitator;
learning set interaction; set design; measurement; data collection decisions; and, data 523
analysis, aiming to provide a benchmark for other AR studies. The authors realise the
list is not exhaustive and can be added to by other researchers. Critical design issues
were presented at each stage principally divided between issues outside the learning
set and those within it. While AR will always have its critics, detailing the process is
useful as a strong design will enhance its application and transferability of results. The
design guide presented in Table II will not appeal to researchers who believe design
should evolve with solving the practice problem but it will appeal to researchers who
mix qualitative and quantitative methods and who are committed to sharing the logic
of design choices irrespective of their philosophic stance.
This study provides initial support that action research interventions can be effective
in developing the management competencies of owner managers of SMEs. AR is
effective at addressing issues that require both cognitive and behavioural change. For
the SME much capacity for change and development rests with the owner/manager
which means use of AR for management development gets to the core of enabling such
enterprises to engage in real change. The problem posed in this paper was aimed at
developing a collaborative competence which was in conflict with the independence
rationale underlying the owner/manager’s decision to set-up the business in the first
place. AR’s successful use in this type of mindset and action scenario means that it is a
really effective tool for management development in the SME context. In addition to it
addressing the problems posed on day one, the longitudinal nature of the AR
implementation, in this case, also left its methodological reflective capacity embedded in
the participants which they can use to solve other problems.
Training programmes that aim to help firms address structural change or change in
the dynamics of how they operate can be demanding and difficult to run especially for
the outsider. AR is a highly involved method of training and requires good backup
support and therefore can be costly. Unless the programme is subsidised by a state or
EU agency, pricing has to be built around cost saving or increased profits generated by
the interventions. Individual trainers using the method need to be experienced and
have experience in the method for it to work. Any rush to solutions or what worked in
the past have to be resisted as the trainer aims to facilitate the groups and individuals
to use the action-reflection cycle of AR. Being cognisant of the time frame for change
may require any training programme to be scheduled over a longer time period with
time built in for ongoing interventions by the trainer. It can also make demands on
trainers due to its high involvement so they may need some mentor support over time.
Obviously, SMEs do not generally have human resource or organisational
development specialists which means that their exposure to the method may come
from advisory firms or from interventions by higher education. These third party
organizations would need to have AR as part of their tool kit. The developmental
potential of AR could be potentialised for SMEs if it was used as a methodology for
state or EU funded training programmes where “learning sets” play a pivotal role.
EJTD References
36,5 Anderson, G., Herr, K. and Nihlen, A. (1994), Studying Your Own School: An Educator’s Guide To
Qualitative Practitioner Research, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1991), “Participatory action research and action science compared”,
in Whyte, W.F. (Ed.), Participatory Action Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 85-96.
Birchall, D., Giambona, G. and Gill, J. (2007), “Who is on the other side of the screen? The role of
524 trust in virtual teams”, in Kautonen, T. and Karjaluoto, H. (Eds), Trust and New
Technologies: Marketing and Management on the Internet and Mobile Media, Edward
Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 205-27.
Bourner, T. and Frost, P. (1996), “Experiencing action learning”, Journal of Workplace Learning,
Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 11-18.
Bray, J.N., Lee, J., Smith, L.L. and Yorks, L. (2000), Collaborative Inquiry In Practice: Action,
Reflection and Making Meaning, Sage, London.
Brinberg, D. and Hirschman, E. (1986), “Multiple orientations for the conduct of marketing
research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 161-73.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge And Action Research,
Falmer, Lewes.
Carson, D. and Gilmore, A. (2000), “SME marketing management competencies”, International
Business Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 363-82.
Clark, J. (2000), “Action research”, in Cormack, D. (Ed.), The Research Process In Nursing,
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 183-98.
Clarke, J., Thorpe, R., Anderson, L. and Gold, J. (2006), “It’s all action, it’s all learning: action
learning in SMEs”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 441-55.
Coghlan, D. (2010), “Seeking common ground in the diversity and diffusion of action research
and collaborative management research action modalities: toward a general empirical
method”, in Pasmore, W.A., Shani, A.B. and Woodman, R. (Eds), Research In Organization
Change And Development, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 149-81.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2010), Doing Action Research In Your Own Organisation, Sage
Publications, London.
Cope, J. (2005), “Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship,
Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 373-97.
Cornwall, A. (1996), “Towards participatory practice: participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and the
participatory process”, in de Koning, K. and Martin, M. (Eds), Participatory Research in
Health: Issues and Experiences, Zed Books, London, pp. 94-107.
Coughlan, P. and Coghlan, D. (2002), “Action research for operations management”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 220-40.
Davey, C.L., Lowe, D.J. and Duff, A.R. (2001), “Generating opportunities for SMEs to develop
partnerships and improve performance”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 1-11.
Dubini, P. and Aldrich, H. (1991), “Personal and extended networks are central to the
entrepreneurial process”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 305-13.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (2002), Management Research – An Introduction,
2nd ed., Sage Publication, London.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case studies”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Florén, H. and Tell, J. (2004), “The emergent prerequisites of managerial learning in small firm Critical issues in
networks”, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 292-307.
research design
Ford, C.M. and Ogilive, D.T. (1997), “An action orientated approach to business education”,
Career Development International, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 80-4.
Ford, D. and Redwood, M. (2005), “Making sense of network dynamics through network pictures:
a longitudinal case study”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34, pp. 648-57.
Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (2003), Managing Business Relationship, 525
Wiley, Chichester.
Granovetter, M.S. (1973), “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78
No. 6, pp. 1360-80.
Granovetter, M.S. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510.
Greenwood, D. and Levin, M. (1998), Introduction To Action Research, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Grundy, S. (1982), “Three modes of action research”, Curriculum Perspectives, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 23-4.
Grzybowski, A. (2008), “Action learning in action”, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher
Education, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 110-6.
Herr, K. and Anderson, G. (2005), The Action Research Dissertation, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Holter, I.M. and Schwartz-Barcott, D. (1993), “Action research: what is it? How has it been used
and how can it be used in nursing?”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 128, pp. 298-304.
Kemmis, S. (2006), “Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: emancipatory
action research in the footsteps of Jürgen Habermas”, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds),
The Handbook of Action Research, Sage Publications, London, pp. 94-105.
Kolb, D.A. and Fry, R. (1975), “Towards an applied theory of experiential learning”, in Cooper, C.
(Ed.), Theories of Group Processes, Wiley, London, pp. 33-58.
McCutcheon, G. and Jurg, B. (1990), “Alternative perspectives on action research”, Theory into
Practice, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 144-51.
McKernan, J. (1991), Curriculum Action Research. A Handbook of Methods and Resources for the
Reflective Practitioner, Kogan Page, London.
Mumford, A. (1995), “Learning in action”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 27 No. 8,
pp. 36-40.
Mumford, A. (1997), Action Learning at Work, Gower Publishing, Aldershot.
O’Hara, S., Webber, T. and Reeve, S. (1996), “Action learning in management education”,
Education and Training, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 16-21.
Ozanne, J.L. and Saatcioglu, B. (2008), “Participatory action research”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 35, October, pp. 423-39.
Park, P. (2001), “Knowledge and participatory research”, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds),
Handbook Of Action Research: Participative Inquiry And Practice, Sage, London, pp. 81-90.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Brook, C. (2005), “What has action learning learned to become?”,
Action Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 2, pp. 49-68.
Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2000), “Using a life-story approach in research entrepreneurial learning:
the development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning
experiences”, Education þ Training, Vol. 42 Nos 4/5, pp. 220-7.
EJTD Raelin, J. (2009), “Seeking conceptual clarity in the action modalities”, Action Learning: Research
and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 17-24.
36,5 Reason, P. (1994), “Co-operative inquiry, participatory action research and action inquiry: three
approaches to participative inquiry”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of
Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 324-39.
Reason, P. (2006), “Choice and quality in action research practice”, Journal of Management
526 Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 187-204.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2001), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and
Practice, Sage, London.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and
Practice, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.
Richards, L. and Richards, T. (1994), “From filing cabinet to computer”, in Bryman, A. and
Burgess, R.G. (Eds), Analysing Qualitative Data, Routledge, London, pp. 146-72.
Schön, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think In Action, Temple Smith,
London.
Stewart, J.A. and Alexander, G. (2006), “Virtual action learning: engaging SMEs”, Action
Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 141-59.
Susman, G.I. and Evered, R.D. (1978), “An assessment of the scientific merits of action research”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 582-603.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Pittaway, L. and Macpherson, A. (2005), “Knowledge within small and
medium sized firms: a systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 257-81.
Van Gils, A.E. (2000), Cooperative Behavior in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: The Role Of
Strategic Alliances, Rijksuniversiteit University Press, Groningen.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London.

Further reading
Coughlan, P. and Coghlan, D. (2011), Collaborative Strategic Improvement Through Network
Action Learning, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

About the authors

Dr Helen McGrath is a Lecturer in Marketing in the Department of Management and Marketing
in UCC. Her research specialism is on the development of network capability in small and
medium-sized enterprises. She teaches in SME network development, business-to-business
marketing, and in marketing and new media. Helen McGrath is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: Helen.McGrath@ucc.ie
Dr Thomas O’Toole is Head of the School of Business at Waterford Institute of Technology.
His research specialism is in the area of strategic relationship management and governance.
From a policy perspective, he is involved in enterprise policy and development networks at
regional and national level. He is a widely published author and his co-authored text on strategic
market relationship is available from Wiley.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats