Journal of Management Development

Act ion research f or pract ising managers

Steven French,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Steven French, (2009) "Action research for practising managers", Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 28 Issue: 3, pp.187-204, https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910939596
Permanent link t o t his document :
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910939596
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

Downloaded on: 24 Oct ober 2017, At : 19: 05 (PT)

Ref erences: t his document cont ains ref erences t o 69 ot her document s.
To copy t his document : permissions@emeraldinsight . com
The f ullt ext of t his document has been downloaded 4009 t imes since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2002),"The concept of action research", The Learning Organization, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp. 125-131 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470210428840">https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470210428840</a>
(2002),"Action research for operations management", International Journal of Operations &amp; Production
Management, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp. 220-240 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210417515">https://
doi.org/10.1108/01443570210417515</a>

Access t o t his document was grant ed t hrough an Emerald subscript ion provided by emerald-srm: 316029 [ ]
For Authors
If you would like t o writ e f or t his, or any ot her Emerald publicat ion, t hen please use our Emerald f or
Aut hors service inf ormat ion about how t o choose which publicat ion t o writ e f or and submission guidelines
are available f or all. Please visit www. emeraldinsight . com/ aut hors f or more inf ormat ion.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and pract ice t o t he benef it of societ y. The company
manages a port f olio of more t han 290 j ournals and over 2, 350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an ext ensive range of online product s and addit ional cust omer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 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.

*Relat ed cont ent and download inf ormat ion correct at t ime of download.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

AR for practising
Action research for practising managers
managers
Steven French
Coffs Harbour Centre for Enterprise Development and Research, 187
Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The paper seeks to develop a coherent model for the application of action research to
problems in the field of management.
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

Design/methodology/approach – An extensive review of the literature was undertaken.

Findings – No model of the process of conducting an action research programme is extant in the
literature. Several scholars have commented on this anomaly. Action research has many applications
and the methodological choice should be determined by the research problem. This paper provides a
working model for researchers in the field of management to apply to their research problem, given
that they have a reasonable understanding of the problem and can develop their research question by
conducting a literature review.
Practical implications – Researchers in the field of management can rely on the academic validity
of following this model.
Originality/value – The ideas of several respected researchers in the field of action research have
been combined to provide a coherent approach to the conduct of an action research programme.
Keywords Management research, Action research, Research methods
Paper type Technical paper

Introduction
Action research (AR) theory suggests that the AR process starts with a notion in the
practitioner’s mind that a change in practice is justified. This paper will explore a
model of AR that can be applied to research in the area of management when
experience and a literature review has enabled the researcher to have a reasonable idea
of the problems to be investigated.
In deciding upon an AR methodology, it is necessary to identify several issues
(these can be found in detail in French, 2009b) and then justify why they are important:
(1) That there are knowledge gaps in current research.
(2) Why the research will have value.
(3) Ontological and epistemological issues.
(4) A discussion of the qualitative/quantitative paradigms, particularly:
.
the application of rigorous techniques and methods for data collection and
analysis, giving particular attention to issues of validity, reliability, and
triangulation;
Journal of Management Development
.
the credibility of the researcher; and Vol. 28 No. 3, 2009
pp. 187-204
.
a philosophical belief in the qualitative (phenomenological) paradigm. q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
(5) That AR is the appropriate research methodology. DOI 10.1108/02621710910939596
 JMD What is action research?
28,3 The origins of AR can be traced back to the work of social scientists both in the USA
and in Europe in the late 1940s. In recent times, AR has been used in a wide variety of
settings in the social sciences, particularly in areas such as organisational
development, education, health, and social care: “In these areas it has a particular
niche among professionals who want to use research to improve their practices”
188 (Denscombe, 1998, p. 57).
Krathwohl (1998) develops the argument that the intention of AR is to find solutions
or improvements to practical problems. In the professions it is a useful approach to
solving practical everyday problems: “The research is often carried out by the person
facing a problem or considering adopting a practice. Usually they have help and
guidance from a researcher, but sometimes they do it on their own” (Krathwohl, 1998,
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

p. 28).
Dick (2002) suggests that AR is a family of research methodologies which pursue
action through change and, concurrently, better understanding through research. In
most of its forms this is achieved by cycles of action and critical reflection and in the
later cycles, continuously refining methods, data, and interpretation in the light of the
understanding developed in the earlier cycles. Hence, it is a process of emergence
which changes and develops as understanding increases. It is also an iterative process
which evaluates the trajectory of change as it converges towards a better
understanding of what is happening.
Several writers suggest that AR started with the American psychologist, Kurt
Lewin (Sanford, 1970; Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988a; Zuber-Skerritt, 1992; Holter and
Schwartz-Barcott, 1993; Meyer, 1993; Masters, 1995; Baskerville and Wood-Harper,
1996; Hatten et al., 1997; Reason, 2001; Williamson and Prosser, 2002). Hart and Bond
(1995), however, disagree that Lewin was the originator, suggesting instead that Lewin
is more popularly known for his contributions to “field theory” and that the beginnings
of AR were to be found in the 1926 work entitled Research for Teachers by
Buckingham. Sanford (1970, p. 3) suggests that Lewin’s greatest contribution may
have been the idea of “studying things through changing them and seeing the effect”.
Baskerville and Wood-Harper (1996, p. 237) maintain that Lewin’s original model
“included six phased stages [. . .] analysis, fact-finding, conceptualisation, planning,
implementation of action and evaluation”. In fact, Kemmis (1988, p. 29) also suggests
that in “attempting to incorporate the essential elements of Lewin’s formulation” six
elements could be discerned, and these are in broad agreement with those elements of
Baskerville and Wood-Harper (1996).
AR, as depicted by Lewin (1946), is a spiral process of phased stages or fundamental
steps, which continue to loop repetitively for as long as is required to complete the
project. Baskerville and Wood-Harper (1996) suggest that the AR methodology has
since been revised to a five-stage process, which consists of “diagnosing, action
planning, action taking, evaluating and specifying learning”. Perry and Zuber-Skerritt
(1991) propound a very similar concept in which there are four steps for each AR cycle.
These steps equate to the latter four steps of the Baskerville and Wood-Harper (1996)
model. Brown et al. (1988) posit the question what prompts the practitioner to take a
critical look at his or her practice; this is the starting point before an AR project can be
initiated. This is in essence a similar step to the diagnosis element of the Baskerville
 and Wood-Harper (1996) model and is similar to the concept of the “notion in the AR for practising
practitioner’s mind”, utilised in this paper. managers
Distinguishing features of action research
There is much debate in the literature as to what distinguishes AR from other research
methods (Foster, 1972; Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988a, b; Dick and Swepson, 1994;
Masters, 1995). Foster (1972, p. 104) suggests that the AR literature is not 189
“overburdened with attempts to distinguish between it and other forms of applied
social science research”.
However, there are dissimilarities that differentiate AR from everyday practice.
Most definitions of AR focus upon the themes of empowerment of participants, an
issue of much import to this paper as empowerment is not only a key ingredient of AR,
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

but is also a fundamental element of the papers in this series – i.e. collaboration
through participation, acquisition of knowledge, and social change. These are
important values underlying AR that are also frequently observed in business practice
and are also values associated with critical theory (Horkheimer, 1987, 1993).
However, the equally common phrases of systematic inquiry, critical reflection, and
strategic action are more appropriately specific to AR. AR differs from everyday
practice in that it is a systematic and deliberate process where it is vitally important to
plan, act, observe, and reflect with more care, with a more systematic approach, and
with more rigour than would be evident in a normal day-to-day business practice
environment:
Action research rejects the concept of a two stage process in which research is carried out first
by researchers and then in a separate second stage the knowledge generated from the
research is applied by practitioners. Instead, the two processes of research and action are
integrated (Somekh, 1995, p. 34).

The applicability of action research to the research of management

Many writers have discussed the application of AR to research opportunities in
management and organisation (Foster, 1972; Perry and Zuber-Skerritt, 1991, 1992;
Westbrook, 1995; Eden and Huxham, 1996; Stringer, 1996; Greenwood and Levin, 1998;
Gummesson, 1999; Coghlan, 2001; Coghlan and Brannick, 2001; Easterby-Smith et al.,
2001; Bawden and Zuber-Skerritt, 2002; Dick, 2002; Gill and Johnson, 2002; Sarah et al.,
2002) and concluded that AR is an appropriate methodological tool to be applied to
management and organisation research problems. AR is also a methodology of
particular attraction to practicing managers, with Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1991)
suggesting that AR is best conducted by practising managers. Sankaran and Tay
(2003, p. 2) explored the work of several writers (Abraham, 1994; Sankaran, 1999;
Easterby-Smith et al., 2001; McNiff et al., 2001; Coughlan and Coghlan, 2002; Dick,
2002) and concluded that there are several reasons why AR is attractive to practising
managers:
.
It uses action as an integral part of research. It integrates thought and action.
.
It is focused on the researcher’s professional values rather than methodological
considerations.
. It allows practitioners to research their own professional activities.
 JMD .
It helps to improve practice at the workplace.
28,3 .
It helps managers in their professional development by critically examining their
own beliefs and practices.
. It helps managers to be multidisciplinary and work across technical, cultural,
and functional boundaries.
190 .
It helps managers in implementing change effectively. AR is founded on research
relationship in which those managers involved are participants in the change
process. It pursues both change in the form of action and understanding through
research.
.
It is problem-focused, context-specific, and future-oriented.
.
It helps to develop a holistic understanding.
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

.
It can use a variety of data collection methods that suit an organisation’s
environment (Sankaran and Tay, 2003, p. 2).

If there is a requirement to make a new contribution to knowledge (as is the case with a
PhD), and the research project was conceived as a piece of practitioner research,
Sankaran and Tay’s (2003) analysis provides supporting justification for AR as the
methodology of choice.
AR typologies
Several writers have discussed the types of AR methodology that might be applicable
to differing research problems. Grundy (1982) describes three modes of AR:
(1) technical;
(2) practical; and
(3) emancipatory.

These three modes are also described by Carr and Kemmis (1986) and Perry and
Zuber-Skerritt (1991). Holter and Schwartz-Barcott (1993, p. 301) identify three
different approaches: “the technical collaborative approach, a mutual collaborative
approach and an enhancement approach”. McCutcheon and Jurg (1990) and McKernan
(1991) described other types and models of AR and Hart and Bond (1995, p. 40)
developed an AR typology which describes four types of AR: “experimental,
organisational, professionalising and empowering”.
Chein et al. (1982) suggest that there are four varieties of AR:
(1) diagnostic;
(2) participant;
(3) empirical; and
(4) experimental.
It would seem that whilst there are different forms of AR, they differ not in
methodology but in the underlying assumptions and views of the participants. Reason
(1994, p. 329) suggests that in reading the literature on AR it is often easier to develop
an understanding of the ideology of the approach than to discover a detailed
description of what actually takes place. However, Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1991)
have provided detailed descriptions of what constitutes AR and have differentiated the
 processes required to be undertaken when utilising an AR methodology for the AR for practising
purpose of writing Master’s or PhD theses. managers
For the purpose of this paper, I will more closely describe the Grundy (1982)[1]
model – i.e. technical, practical and emancipatory – as cited in Perry and
Zuber-Skerritt (1991). They describe the aims of the facilitator’s role and the
relationship between the facilitator and the participants in the three different types of
AR methodology and justify the use of this particular AR methodology, especially 191
emancipatory AR for Master’s and PhD students in the field of business management.
Technical AR requires the testing of an intervention based on a pre-developed and
specified theoretical framework. The intent of the research is to question whether the
selected intervention can be applied in a practical setting (Holter and Schwartz-Barcott,
1993). The researcher aims to gain the practitioners’ interest in the research and acts as
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

an outside expert who will assist in the implementation of the intervention (Kemmis
and McTaggart, 1988a; Holter and Schwartz-Barcott, 1993). Perry and Zuber-Skerritt
(1991, p. 77) suggest that the aims of technical AR should be the
effectiveness/efficiency of educational practice and professional development.
Practical AR requires the researcher and practitioner to join together with the
intention of identifying potential problems, underlying causes, and possible solutions
or interventions. The researcher encourages participation and self-reflection of the
practitioner (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988a; Holter and Schwartz-Barcott, 1993).
Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1991, p. 77) suggest that the aims of practical AR include not
only those for technical, but in addition require more understanding and a
transformation of consciousness of the practitioner.
Emancipatory AR requires the involvement of all participants equally with no
hierarchy existing between the researcher and the practitioners. The aim of the
researcher is to reduce the distance between the actual problems identified by the
practitioner and the theory used to explain and resolve the problems. The researcher
facilitates the discussion with the practitioners, so as to identify potential underlying
problems and assumptions and so allow the researcher to become a collaborative
member of the group (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988a; Holter and Schwartz-Barcott,
1993). Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1991, p. 77) suggest that in addition to the
requirements for technical and practical AR, emancipatory AR requires that the aims
must include the participant’s emancipation from the dictates of tradition,
self-deception, and coercion, these are also congruent with the philosophy of critical
theory (French, 2009a).
Within the context of emancipatory AR, there is still a consideration of how much
participation is appropriate for the process to be truly emancipatory. Dick (1999b)
discusses the work of Zuber-Skerritt and Perry (1996, cited in Dick, 2002) and confirms
the view that “the field study may be done with the style and level of participation that
suits you and your participants” (Dick, 2002, p. 167). As a consequence of these ideas,
an emancipatory AR methodology is considered to be appropriate and is applied in the
AR cycles described in this paper.

Applying an AR methodology to higher degrees

Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1991) suggest that in traditional research, leading to a higher
degree, the significant distinction between a Master’s and PhD thesis is that the PhD
 JMD research is required to make a significant contribution to knowledge. They suggest
28,3 that in AR there are two further requirements:
A Masters core AR project need only progress through one planning, acting, observing,
reflecting, cycle of management practice to demonstrate mastery of the research
methodology. In contrast, a PhD core AR project would probably need to progress through
at least two or three cycles to uncover a distinct contribution to knowledge. Although these
192 two or three cycles do not have to involve the same workgroup, the understanding gained in
the reflection phase of the first spiral in the first workgroup should be transferred to the
planning phase of the first spiral in another workgroup (Perry and Zuber-Skerritt, 1991, p. 77).
Grundy and Kemmis (1981, p. 323) suggest that a single cycle can only be regarded as a
beginning of a larger process, they doubt whether a single loop constitutes AR at all.
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

The action research spiral

The four steps which appear regularly in the literature (Grundy and Kemmis, 1981;
Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988a; Perry and Zuber-Skerritt, 1991; Baskerville and
Wood-Harper, 1996; Dick, 2002) and are therefore deemed to be an appropriate model
for this paper are:
(1) develop a plan;
(2) act to implement the plan;
(3) observe the action and collect data; and
(4) reflect on the action and re-plan.

This can be shortened to: plan, act, observe, and reflect. The AR process begins with a
notion in the practitioner’s mind that a change in work practice is desirable. A group is
then formed to discuss the practitioner’s notion and to identify and clarify the mutual
concern that has been recognised. The group then makes the decision to work together
and focus its improvement strategies on the “thematic concern”, essentially the
conclusions regarding desired change that have been identified in the first AR cycle
(Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988a, pp. 8-9). The group is then required to work through
the spiral of elements until the process is complete.
Grundy and Kemmis (1981) suggest that one of the issues to be considered in
relation to the AR spiral is the problem of relating retrospective understanding
(reached through past action, observation, and reflection) to prospective action and
plans for action. The plan is constructed action and by definition must be prospective
to action – that is, looking forward. Action is retrospectively guided by planning as it
looks back to planning for its rationale, but the causal link is tenuous. Observation has
the function of documenting the effects of action – it is prospective in that it will
always be guided by the intent to provide a sound basis for critical self-reflection.
Reflection is retrospective because it looks back to observation to locate problems and
make sense of them. This concept of looking forward and looking backward as a
fundamental philosophy of the AR cycles is also identified by Kemmis and McTaggart
(1988a). Grundy and Kemmis (1981, p. 324) discuss this as an important concept when
they state that:
Action research is a dynamic process in which these four aspects are to be understood not as
static steps, complete in themselves, but rather as moments in the action research spiral.
 I interpret both of these concepts, looking forward and looking back, to confirm my AR for practising
own notion that the whole AR “spiral” process is more complex than the simple linear managers
models described in the literature and repeated in this paper would suggest. This
concept is also congruent to Dick’s (1999b) documentation model that will be used in
the write up of the research reported in French (2009b, c, d, e).
Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1991) maintain that two further AR cycles are required to
start and complete the research project – an AR cycle to identify the project and 193
another to write the thesis. They differentiate between these two cycles and the “core”
cycles of the main body of the research. Figure 1 depicts the AR spiral, incorporating
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

Figure 1.
The action research spiral
 JMD the relationship between thesis research and core research cycles (Perry and
28,3 Zuber-Skerritt, 1991, p. 76).

The notion
Taba and Noel (1957) suggest that the starting point of AR is to identify the problem,
suggesting that a “diagnosis” of the stated concerns is needed. Brown et al. (1988) take
194 this idea further, by asking what it is that prompts practitioners to take a critical look
at their practice, arguing that sometimes it comes from an internal notion that things
could be done better. Kemmis and McTaggart (1988a, pp. 53-6) call this phase
“reconnaissance” of the situation. I have used the phrase “notion in the practitioner’s
mind”, with a description of the notion being included during the early stages of each
analysis paper. Whether called diagnosis, reconnaissance or notion, the concept is that
prior to the four steps of the cycle – i.e. there is an initial step, philosophically similar
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

to the reflection phase, where the problems or opportunities which have led to the idea
that an AR project is worthwhile, are discussed and developed.

Plan
The AR literature suggests that it is critical to develop a plan of informed action to
improve current practice. The plan must be flexible to allow adaptation for unforeseen
effects or constraints. “Planning starts usually with something like a general idea. For
one reason or another it seems desirable to reach a certain objective” (Lewin, 1946,
pp. 34-46). Kemmis and McTaggart (1988a) suggest that the plan must be flexible
enough to adapt to unforeseen events because, in their opinion, there is some degree of
unpredictability in all social action and therefore some risk.

Act
Action is a deliberate and controlled process that leads to a careful and thoughtful
change in practice (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988a). The group members act to
implement the plan and use the action as a platform for the further development of
further action. Action is guided by the planning in that it looks back to the planning
phase. Kemmis and McTaggart (1988a, p. 12) caution that “critically informed action is
not completely controlled by plans. It is essentially risky. It takes place in real time and
encounters real political and material constraints”.

Observe
The action is observed to collect evidence, which allows thorough evaluation. The
observation looks forward to and provides the basis for the reflection phase. Careful
observation is necessary because the action will be constrained by reality. Observation
should be planned, but it must be responsive and flexible so as to record the
unexpected (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988a).

Reflect
Grundy and Kemmis (1981, p. 330) suggest that data analysis occurs during the
reflective moment of the AR cycle. The reflective stage has the purpose of providing
the practitioner with important insights with which to move the process forward. The
practitioner is the sole arbiter of the interpretation, but must be aware and take steps to
ensure that no self-deception occurs.
 As a consequence, the interpretation of others is vitally important because they may AR for practising
provide insights that were not obvious to the lone practitioner. Reflection of the action managers
recorded during observation is usually aided by discussion among the participants.
Group reflection can lead to a critical review of the meaning of the social situation and
provides a basis for further planning of critically informed action, thereby continuing
the cycle. These steps are carried out in a more careful, systematic, and rigorous way
than that which usually occurs in daily practice (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988a, 195
pp. 10-14; Zuber-Skerritt, 1992, p. 16).

Other characteristics of AR
In addition to the characteristics of AR that have already been described, there are six
further attributes that Zuber-Skerritt (1992) and Holter and Schwartz-Barcott (1993)
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

claim distinguish AR from other more traditional forms of research. Specifically, these
are collaboration between researcher and practitioner, problem solving, change in
practice, theory development, publication of results, and power.

Collaboration
Collaboration is the interaction between the researcher or research team and the
practitioner or group of practitioners. The practitioners have knowledge of the field or
workplace from an internal perspective, especially with regard to the history and
culture of the workplace. The researcher is an outsider who has expertise in theory,
consulting, and research. The collaboration between the two parties can vary from
periodic to continuous collaboration throughout the study, and the nature of the
collaboration is a determinant of whether the research process is technical, practical or
emancipatory (Holter and Schwartz-Barcott, 1993; Hart and Bond, 1995). However,
other writers suggest that the researcher may not be an outside expert and should be
considered as part of the team, working from within to formalise the research with and
for the practitioners. In order for the collaboration to be emancipatory, the researcher
must become part of the team (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988a; Perry and
Zuber-Skerritt, 1991; Zuber-Skerritt, 1992).
Collaboration has also been discussed by other writers with the use of alternative
nomenclature, specifically “participation” (Dick, 2002) and “process management”
(Bawden and Zuber-Skerritt, 2002).

Problem-solving
“In action research, the problem is defined in relation to a specific situation and setting”
(Holter and Schwartz-Barcott, 1993, p. 300). The primary purpose of AR is as a tool for
understanding the processes of change (Hatten et al., 1997; Krathwohl, 1998). The
problem is determined as one of the early tasks of a group assembled by the
practitioner who has a notion that some aspect of practice might be improved. A
variety of data collection methods can be used to identify the problem, for example
observation, interviews, and questionnaires (Stringer, 1996).

Change in practice
Several writers have discussed the importance of AR leading to a change in practice
(Zuber-Skerritt, 1992; Holter and Schwartz-Barcott, 1993; Hatten et al., 1997;
Denscombe, 1998). They suggest that the knowledge and understanding developed
 JMD from the AR process should not only be of theoretical importance but also lead to
28,3 practical work improvements directly related to the problem or issues that were
identified.

Theory development
A fundamental objective of AR is that the results achieved through the research
196 process are utilised by the researcher to develop new theories or expand existing
scientific theories (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988a; Holter and Schwartz-Barcott, 1993;
Hatten et al., 1997). Through the application of AR processes, practitioners are able to
justify their work. The evidence that is gathered during the process and the critical
reflection, which constitutes data analysis, creates a developed, tested, and critically
examined rationale for the practitioner’s practical change of practice. Dick (1999a, p. 2)
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

suggests that for the purpose of thesis writing, examiners “weight research outcomes
much more highly than action outcomes”.

Publication of results
Hatten et al. (1997) concur with Zuber-Skerritt (1992) when it is suggested that the
theories and solutions which are produced from the AR process should be made public
to the other participants and those in the wider community who may have an interest
in that work setting or situation.

Power
Grundy (1982) writes of the concept of power in relation to the different modes of AR.
“In technical action research it is the idea that is the source of power for the action and
since the idea often resides with the facilitator, it is the facilitator who controls the
power in the project” (cited in Masters, 1995, p. 7). Power in AR involves the sharing
between a group of equal participants. In emancipatory AR, participants are free from
the traditional oppressive constraints. Power is located in the group and not with
individuals. It is suggested that the expert is like a moderator of the process, who
collaborates and shares responsibility with the other participants (Hughes, 1996).

Developing an action research protocol

Although most AR typologies do not provide a practical “to-do” list for completing an
AR project, a structure is developed utilising the philosophies of AR discussed in this
paper. Dick (2002) suggests that much of the literature on AR does not explain in detail
how AR is done. He contends that this need be of little concern to researchers
considering AR, as researchers can be vigilant in ensuring that their chosen methods
are consistent with both the action and the research aims of the project. “With this
protection, many of the methods used for other approaches can be pressed into service
here” (Dick, 2002, p. 167).
Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1991, p. 70) provide a list (as shown in Appendix 1), which
asks two questions in six parts, and that I will use as the starting point for AR as a
“checklist”.
Then as the AR proceeds and is eventually written up in the seven-part structure
(see Appendix 2) is used. In Part 5, the Dick (199b) doccumentation model is used to
question the AR process and the use of this structure is demonstrated in French (2009c,
d, e). This has been developed to facilitate a consistent approach to the thesis writing
 cycle described in Figure 1 and in response to Dick’s (2002) concern of the apparent AR for practising
weakness of the AR literature in explaining in detail how AR is actually done. managers
Data collection
In traditional research methodologies there is often a specific accepted method of data
collection that is symbiotic with the data analysis methodology. However, in AR this is
not generally the case. “There also appears to be an understanding among action 197
researchers that action research does not require any special method of data collection”
(Holter and Schwartz-Barcott, 1993, p. 300).
For this project, data have been collected from several sources:
.
the academic literature;
.
committee meetings – observation notes and minutes;
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

.
documentation for the funding applications;
.
the seminar series – observation, discussion, seminar notes, and debrief;
. the individual strategic plans of the seminar participants, reviewed three to six
months after the seminar series;
.
documentation provided to the regional funding body (RFB) on completion of the
project;
.
notes from The Firm’s[2] management meetings;
. the strategy of The Firm;
.
occupational health and safety meetings – observation notes and minutes;
.
company board meeting – observation notes and minutes; and
.
the observation and reflection notes for each AR cycle.

The data collection methods included:

.
participant observation;
.
general discussion;
.
debriefing meetings;
.
review of official meetings;
. review of official documents; and
.
review of the plan for each AR cycle.

Data analysis
Grundy and Kemmis (1981, p. 330) suggest that it is during the reflective moment of
the AR cycle that data analysis occurs. The reflective stage has the purpose of
providing the practitioner with important insights with which to move the process
forward. The practitioner is the sole arbiter of the interpretation. Consequently, the
interpretation of others is vitally important because they may provide insights that
were not obvious to the lone practitioner. These insights are elicited through discussion
or through the deliberation of participants. The term “triangulation” has been
appropriated to refer to the cross referencing of a number of participants” perceptions
of an event. Triangulation makes possible the sharing of authentic insight and is thus
an important process of enlightenment.
 JMD Generalisability
28,3 Denscombe (1998, pp. 64-5) suggests that it might be argued that the findings from an
AR process will rarely contribute to broader insights because of the constraints on the
scope of AR projects. Because they are often located in the practitioner’s worksite, the
prospects of the data being representative are poor. Also, the research is generally
focused on the one site rather than spread across a range of sites and hence AR is
198 vulnerable to the criticism that the findings relate to one instance and should not or
cannot be generalised beyond this specific “case”. “AR can be seen as a variant of case
research, but where a case researcher is (usually)[3] an independent observer, an action
researcher is a participant in the implementation of a system, but simultaneously
wants to evaluate a certain intervention technique” (Westbrook, 1995, p. 8).
This is, however, an argument that could be broadly applied to all case studies, of
which AR is a specific type. “In one sense this reservation needs to be acknowledged.
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

Surely, practice-driven research in local settings hardly lends itself to conclusions with
universal application. New truths and new theories will be unlikely to find foundation
in such studies alone” (Denscombe, 1998, pp. 64-5). It is important for the action
researcher to consider Denscombe’s (1998, pp. 64-5) warning: “beware of making
grandiose claims on the basis of action research projects”. However, it can be argued
that AR, though practice-driven and small-scale, should not lose anything by way of
rigour. Like any other small-scale research, it can draw on existing theories, apply and
test research propositions, use suitable methods, and offer evaluation of existing
knowledge.

AR is a case study methodology

As it is a methodology that is a member of the case-study family of methodologies
(Westbrook, 1995; Dick, 2002), action researchers must be cognisant of some of the
criticisms that have been directed at qualitative methodology and specifically of
case-study research. These criteria are listed below and details of the scholars whose
work in justifying case study research is provided. It is important for this AR model
that complete case study justification is provided.

Credibility, validity, reliability, and triangulation (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1989, 1994;
Patton, 1990; Parkhe, 1993)
Yin (1989) identifies tactics for five issues:
(1) construct validity;
(2) internal validity;
(3) external validity;
(4) reliability; and
(5) triangulation.

The fundamental difference between case study and AR is that in AR the researcher is
not “divorced” from the research and so researcher participation must be justified.

The credibility of the researcher

Patton (1990, p. 461) suggests that the “researcher is the instrument in qualitative
inquiry”, and that the credibility of the researcher and the way in which that person
 conducts the research process will ultimately and significantly affect outcomes. Patton AR for practising
(1990, p. 472) continues, “there are four ways in which the presence of the evaluator, or managers
the fact that an evaluation is taking place, can distort the findings of a study”. These
are:
(1) reactions of program participants and staff to the presence of the evaluator;
(2) changes in the evaluator;
199
(3) the predispositions or biases of the evaluator; and
(4) evaluator incompetence.

The unique element of AR that differentiates it from other forms of case study is the
participation of the researcher. In AR the researcher is not separated from the research
case but is an intimate part. Sometimes the researcher is the driver of the research
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

project and a management consultant.

A philosophical belief in the qualitative paradigm

The position described by numerous writers in the literature is that both positivist and
qualitative methods and their associated techniques have a significant role to play in
generating, assessing, and expanding theory (Deshpande, 1983; Bonoma, 1985;
Eisenhardt, 1989; Romano, 1989; Yin, 1989; Patton, 1990; Adams and White, 1994;
McGuire, 1994; Stake, 1994). Parkhe (1993, p. 237) supports this position by suggesting
that “there is no competition (between positivist and interpretivist approaches), but
rather an essential continuity and inseparability between inductive and deductive
approaches to theory development. Bourgeois (1979) correctly pointed to the
complementarity between induction and deduction, insisting that the process must
continually weave back and forth between them”.

Conclusion
As discussed there are many varieties of AR, and while there is much to be found in the
literature, there is very little evidence as to how AR is actually done. In this paper an
AR methodology is described that has both practitioner and academic validity. Many
practicing managers wishing to pursue a higher degree and develop change in
management practice can be confident that applying this methodology will be
acceptable. This AR process is described in detail in Appendix 2, which describes in
detail the seven steps that must be introduced with a full justification of case study
methodology.

Notes
1. AR has been successfully utilised as a research methodology in many academic disciplines.
The Grundy (1982) model has been successfully applied in the management discipline and
consequently the advice of Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1991) that emancipatory AR is a
methodology of choice for AR PhD projects in the management discipline, has been accepted.
2. “The Firm” is the pseudonym of the company described in French (2009e).
3. Emphasis added.
 JMD References
28,3 Abraham, S. (1994), Exploratory Action Research for Manager Development, Action Learning,
Action Research & Process Management Society (ALARPM), Brisbane.
Adams, G.B. and White, J.D. (1994), “Dissertation research in public administration and cognate
fields: an assessment of methods and quality”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 54 No. 6,
pp. 565-76.
200 Baskerville, R.L. and Wood-Harper, T. (1996), “A critical perspective on action research as a
method for information systems research”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 235-46.
Bawden, R. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002), “The concept of process management”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 132-8.
Bonoma, T.V. (1985), “Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems and a process”,
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22, pp. 199-208.

Bourgeois, L.J. (1979), “Toward a method of middle-range theorizing”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 443-7.
Brown, L., Henry, C., Henry, J. and McTaggart, R. (1988), “Action research: notes on the national
seminar”, in Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (Eds), The Action Research Reader,
Deakin University Press, Geelong.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming Critical: Knowing through Action Research,
Deakin University, Melbourne.
Chein, I., Cook, S.W. and Harding, J. (1982), “The field of action research”, in Kemmis, S. and
McTaggart, R. (Eds), The Action Research Reader, Deakin University Press, Geelong.
Coghlan, D. (2001), “Insider action research projects – implications for practicing managers”,
Management Learning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2001), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization,
Sage Publications, London.
Coughlan, P. and Coghlan, D. (2002), “Action research for operations management”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 220-40.
Denscombe, M. (1998), The Good Research Guide for Small Scale Research Projects,
Open University Press, Buckingham.
Deshpande, R. (1983), “Paradigms lost – on theory and method in research in marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 47, pp. 101-10.
Dick, B. (1999a), “What is action research?”, available at: www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/
whatisar.html
Dick, B. (1999b), “Action research and publication”, available at: www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/
ar/arp/research.html
Dick, B. (2002), “Postgraduate programs using action research”, The Learning Organization,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 159-70.
Dick, B. and Swepson, P. (1994), “Frequently asked questions about action research”, paper
posted on PARtoolbox@cornell.edu
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (2001), Management Research – An Introduction,
Sage Publications, London.
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996), “Action research for management research”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 7, pp. 75-86.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theory from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
 Foster, M. (1972), “An introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work AR for practising
organizations”, in Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (Eds), The Action Research Reader,
Deakin University Press, Geelong. managers
French, S. (2009a), “Cogito ergo sum: exploring epistemological options for strategic
management”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 18-37.
French, S. (2009b), “Reframing strategic thinking: the research – aims and outcomes outcomes”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 205-24. 201
French, S. (2009c), “The inductive frame”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 225-41.
French, S. (2009d), “The deductive frame”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 242-66.
French, S. (2009e), “The reflective frame”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 3,
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

pp. 267-80.
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2002), Research Methods for Managers, Sage Publications, London.
Greenwood, D.J. and Levin, M. (1998), Introduction to Action Research:Social Research for Social
Change, Sage Publications, London.
Grundy, S. (1982), “Three modes of action research”, in Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (Eds),
The Action Research Reader, Deakin University Press, Geelong.
Grundy, S. and Kemmis, S. (1981), “Educational action research in Australia: the state of the art
(an overview)”, The Action Research Reader, Deakin University Press, Geelong.
Gummesson, E. (1999), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage Publications,
London.
Hart, E. and Bond, M. (1995), Action Research for Health and Social Care: A Guide to Practice,
Open University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Hatten, R., Knapp, D. and Salonga, R. (1997), “Action research: comparison with the concepts of
the reflective practitioner and quality assurance”, in Hughes, I. (Ed.), Action Research
Electronic Reader, available at www.behs.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow/Reader/rmasters.htm
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.
Horkheimer, M. (1987), Eclipse of Reason, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Horkheimer, M. (1993), Between Philosophy and Social Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hughes, I. (1996), “Action research: what is it?”, Action Research on the Web, available at@
AROW@cchs.usyd.edu.au
Kemmis, S. (1988), “Action research in retrospect and prospect”, in Kemmis, S. and
McTaggart, R. (Eds), The Action Research Reader, Deakin University Press, Geelong.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988a), The Action Research Planner, Deakin University,
Melbourne.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988b), The Action Research Reader, Deakin University,
Melbourne.
Krathwohl, D.R. (1998), Educational & Social Science Research: An Integrated Approach,
Longman, New York, NY.
Lewin, K. (1946), “Action research and minority problems”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 34-46.
McCutcheon, G. and Jurg, B. (1990), “Alternative perspectives on action research”, Theory into
Practice, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 144-51.
 JMD McGuire, L. (1994), “Case studies for research – story telling or scientific method?”, Strategic
Management Educators Conference, Vol. 22, QUT, Brisbane.
28,3
McKernan, J. (1991), Curriculum Action Research. A Handbook of Methods and Resources for the
Reflective Practitioner, Kogan Page, London.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (2001), Action Research in Organisations, Routledge
Studies in Human Resource Development, Routledge, London.
202 Masters, J. (1995), “The history of action research”, Action Research Electronic Reader, available
at: AROW@cchs.usyd.edu.au
Meyer, J.E. (1993), “New paradigm research in practice: the trials and tribulations of action
research”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 1066-72.
Parkhe, A. (1993), “Messy research, methodological predispositions, and theory development in
international joint ventures”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 227-68.
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA.
Perry, C. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1991), “Action research in graduate management research
programs”, The First World Congress on Action Research & Process Management, Vol. 1
No. 6, pp. 67-79.
Perry, C. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992), “Action research in graduate management programs”,
Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 195-208.
Reason, P. (1994), “Three approaches to participative enquiry”, in Denzin, K. and Lincoln, S.
(Eds), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Reason, P. (2001) “Learning and change through action research”, in Henry, J. (Ed.), Creative
Management, Sage Publications, London.
Romano, C.A. (1989), “Research strategies for small business: a case study”, International Small
Business Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 35-43.
Sanford, N. (1970), “Whatever happened to action research?”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 3-23.
Sankaran, S. (1999), “An action research study of management learning: developing local
engineering managers of a Japanese multinational company in Singapore”, PhD thesis,
International Graduate School of Management, University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Sankaran, S. and Tay, B.H. (2003), “Action research models in business research”, paper
presented at the 9th Australian and New Zealand Systems Conference (ANZSYS),
Melbourne.
Sarah, R., Haslett, T., Molineux, J., Olsen, J., Stephens, J. and Walker, B. (2002), “Business action
research in practice – a strategic conversation about conducting action research in
business organisations”, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 535-46.
Somekh, B. (1995), “The contribution of action research to development in social endeavours:
a position paper on action research methodology”, British Educational Research Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 339-55.
Stake, R.E. (1994), “Case studies”, in Lincoln, Y.S. and Denzin, N.K. (Eds), Handbook of
Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Stringer, E.T. (1996), Action Research – A Handbook for Practitioners, Sage Publications,
London.
Taba, H. and Noel, E. (1957), “Action research a case study”, in Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R.
(Eds), The Action Research Reader, Deakin University Press, Geelong.
 Westbrook, R. (1995), “Action research, a new paradigm for research in production and AR for practising
operations management”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 15 No. 12, pp. 6-20. managers
Williamson, G.R. and Prosser, S. (2002), “Action research: politics, ethics and participation”,
Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 587-93.
Yin, R.K. (1989), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, rev. ed., Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills, CA. 203
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992), “Improved learning and teaching through action learning and action
research”, draft paper for the HERDSA Conference 1992, University of Queensland.

Appendix 1. Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1991, p. 70) checklist

Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

If yours is a situation in which . . .

(1) people reflect and improve (or develop) their own work and their own situations by
tightly interlinking their reflection and action and also making their experience public
not only to other participants but also to other persons interested in and concerned about
the work and the situation, i.e. their (public) theories and practices of the work and the
situation;

and, if yours is a situation in which there is increasingly . . .

(1) data gathering by participants themselves (or with the help of others) in relation to their
own questions;
(2) participation (in problem posing and in answering questions) in decision making;
(3) power-sharing and the relative suspension of hierarchical ways of working towards
industrial democracy;
(4) collaboration among members of the group as a “critical community”: self-reflection,
self-evaluation, and self-management by autonomous and responsible persons and
groups learning progressively (and publicly) by doing and making mistakes in a
“self-reflective spiral” of planning, acting, observing, reflecting, re-planning, etc.
(5) reflection, which supports the idea of the “(self-)reflective practitioner”;

. . . then yours is a situation in which action research is occurring.

Appendix 2. The seven-part structure for AR analysis

(1) Diagram. Diagrammatic representation of the action research cycles.
(2) The notion. An AR process begins with a notion in the practitioner’s mind that a change
in work practice is desirable. The notion is then articulated and used to develop the
“thematic concern” and “research question”.
(3) The AR cycles. The AR cycles are enumerated and objectives set for each cycle. As
planning is the first element of each of the AR cycles, a set of objectives for each cycle is
articulated. The first AR cycle will include the development and articulation of the
“thematic concern” (the action element) and the “research question” (the research
element) of the project.
(4) The AR criteria/methodology checklist. An AR criteria/methodology checklist, utilising
the thinking of Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1991, p. 70), is applied at the start of each
analysis chapter to confirm that an AR project is occurring.
 JMD (5) The Dick (1999b) documentation model. Each of the AR cycles of plan, act, observe,
reflect, and re-plan is described with the use of Dick’s (1999b) frame for each cycle,
28,3 including: “Before the event: The outcomes you hope to achieve in this next cycle, and why
you think they are worth pursuing. The contribution you expect those outcomes to make to
your long-term goals, and why you expect it. The actions you plan to take to achieve those
outcomes and why you think those actions will achieve those outcomes in that situation.
“Then, after the event: What actions you carried out, and what outcomes you achieved.
204 How and why these differed (if they did) from what you expected. What you learned about
the client system, your methodology, yourself and so on”.
(6) Other AR characteristics. Each chapter will conclude with a discussion of how the project
demonstrated the six elements: collaboration, problem-solving, change in practice, theory
development, publication of results, and power.
(7) Conclusion. A conclusion is provided in response to the “action” outcomes and to provide
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

an answer to the “research” question.

About the author

Steven French is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Commerce and Management and a Director of
the Centre for Enterprise Development and Research. He has 30 years’ experience as a
practitioner in the corporate sector and in management consulting, having held executive
positions with multinational firms both in Australia and the UK. He is also the owner and
director of three SMEs. Steven has a keen interest in business strategy and as a “critical” scholar
his PhD is an academic justification for the development of a strategic methodology which shuns
the simplicity of the equilibrium assumption and embraces the epistemology of complex
self-adapting systems theory. Steven French can be contacted at: steven.french@scu.edu.au

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Siyu Chen, Fuquan Huang, Wenjie Zeng. 2017. Comments on systematic methodologies of action research
in the new millennium: A review of publications 2000–2014. Action Research 36, 147675031769110.
[Crossref]
2. Mikael Lundgren, Hans Jansson. 2016. Developing international business knowledge through an
appreciative inquiry learning network: Proposing a methodology for collaborative research. International
Business Review 25:1, 346-355. [Crossref]
3. Stefano Baraldi, Antonella Cifalinò. 2015. Delivering training strategies: the balanced scorecard at work.
International Journal of Training and Development 19:3, 179-198. [Crossref]
4. Michal Doležel, Alena Buchalcevová. 2015. Test Governance Framework for contracted IS development:
Ethnographically informed action research. Information and Software Technology 65, 69-94. [Crossref]
5. Marina Kirstein, Rolien Kunz. 2015. Student-centred approach to teaching large classes: friend or foe?.
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

Meditari Accountancy Research 23:2, 222-246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

6. Teresa S. Waring, Martin Alexander. 2015. Innovations in inpatient flow and bed management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35:5, 751-781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Simon Stephens, Michael Margey. 2015. Action learning and executive education: achieving credible
personal, practitioner and organisational learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice 12:1, 37-51.
[Crossref]
8. David Coghlan, A.B. (Rami) Shani, Jonas Roth, Robert M. Sloyan. 2014. Executive development through
insider action research: voices of insider action researchers. Journal of Management Development 33:10,
991-1003. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Maria Isabel Wolf Motta Morandi, Luis Henrique Rodrigues, Daniel Pacheco Lacerda, Isaac Pergher.
2014. Foreseeing Iron Ore Prices Using System Thinking and Scenario Planning. Systemic Practice and
Action Research 27:3, 287-306. [Crossref]
10. Silvia Ranfagni, Simone Guercini. 2014. On the trail of supply side authenticity: Paradoxes and
compromises emerging from an action research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 13:3, 176-187. [Crossref]
11. Alison Pearce. 2014. The action researcher as tempered radical and strategic entrepreneur in higher
education: a personal reflection. Educational Action Research 22:2, 178-195. [Crossref]
12. Peter Björk. 2014. The DNA of Tourism Service Innovation: A Quadruple Helix Approach. Journal of
the Knowledge Economy 5:1, 181-202. [Crossref]
13. Aurora Dimache, Thomas Roche. 2013. A decision methodology to support servitisation of
manufacturing. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 33:11/12, 1435-1457.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Cindy Millman, Hatem El-Gohary. 2013. New Digital Media Marketing and Micro Business.
International Journal of Online Marketing 1:1, 41-62. [Crossref]
15. Stephen Richard Alfred, John Timothy Lambert Jr. 2012. Management Factors Influencing Location
Selection Decisions of Independent Filmmakers: An Exploratory Case Study. Systemic Practice and Action
Research 25:4, 323-354. [Crossref]
16. Joachim Kernstock, Tim O Brexendorf. 2012. Corporate Brand Integration in Mergers and Acquisitions
– An Action Research-Based Approach. Corporate Reputation Review 15:3, 169-178. [Crossref]
17. Maria T. Kirby. Action Research for Sustainable Change 283-285. [Crossref]
 18. Amik Garg, S.G. Deshmukh. 2012. Designing balanced scorecard for multi echelon repair inventory
systems. Journal of Modelling in Management 7:1, 59-96. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Carlos Henrique Pereira Mello, João Batista Turrioni, Amanda Fernandes Xavier, Danielle Fernandes
Campos. 2012. Pesquisa-ação na engenharia de produção: proposta de estruturação para sua condução.
Production 22:1, 1-13. [Crossref]
20. Jacqueline Fendt, Renata Kaminska-Labbé. 2011. Relevance and creativity through design-driven action
research: Introducing pragmatic adequacy. European Management Journal 29:3, 217-233. [Crossref]
21. Bob Dick. 2011. Action research literature 2008—2010: Themes and trends. Action Research 9:2, 122-143.
[Crossref]
22. Amik Garg, S.G. Deshmukh. 2011. Development of a repair inventory model for effective maintenance of
modular electronic equipment. Journal of Advances in Management Research 8:1, 53-84. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
23. Steven French. 2009. The reflective frame. Journal of Management Development 28:3, 267-280. [Abstract]
Downloaded by GROUPE ESC TOULOUSE At 19:05 24 October 2017 (PT)

[Full Text] [PDF]

24. Steven French. 2009. The inductive frame. Journal of Management Development 28:3, 225-241. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
25. Steven French. 2009. Re‐framing strategic thinking: the research – aims and outcomes. Journal of
Management Development 28:3, 205-224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Cindy Millman, Hatem El-Gohary. New Digital Media Marketing and Micro Business 59-81. [Crossref]
27. Cindy Millman, Hatem El-Gohary. New Digital Media Marketing and Micro Business 1309-1331.
[Crossref]