ACTION RESEARCH MODEL

Figure 1: Susman’s Action research model (1983)

Gerald Susman (1983) as cited by Goh (2012), distinguishes five phases within an

action research cycle (Figure 1). The researcher starts with an initial survey to diagnose the

situation to identify or define the problem. This is followed by planning to take action.

Alternative courses of Gerald Susman (1983) as cited by Goh (2012), outlines five phases in

an action research cycle. The process begins with an initial survey to diagnose the situation

and identify the problem, followed by planning for action. Subsequently, various courses of

action are considered before choosing the most appropriate action plan. The implementation

of the action involves data collection and analysis to assess the outcomes. The overall

findings are determined, and lessons learned can indicate the success of the action taken. A

new cycle commences with a re-evaluation of the situation, continuing until the issue is

resolved as per Goh (2012). Susman (1983) proposes a valuable framework for conducting
action research, which shares similarities with the conventional research design and

implementation process (Burns & Bush, 2009; McDaniel & Gates, 2011).

According to Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008:196) as cited by Auriacombe (2015),

action research unfolds as a cyclical process, characterized by distinct stages. These stages

vary among authors, with some delineating two stages (collaborative analysis and

collaborative change) as proposed by Baskerville and Myers (2004), while others, like

Susman and Evered (1978), present a more detailed model encompassing problem

identification or analysis, planning, implementation or action taking, evaluation, adaptation,

and re-implementation (Myers 2000:57).

Furthermore, action research instigates change through a cyclical sequence typically

comprising four iterative phases: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (Kemmis and

McTaggart 2000: 11–14). Susman (1983) introduces five phases. The initial phase involves

identifying a problem and gathering information for a thorough diagnosis. Subsequently, a

plan of action is devised and executed. Data is then analyzed to identify potential solutions,

leading to the implementation of one chosen intervention. Following this, data is collected,

analyzed or evaluated, and reflected upon to assess the success of outcomes. The problem is

reassessed, and the cyclical process recommences, evolving until resolution is achieved.

Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008:196) as cited by Auriacombe (2015) highlight that

most action research models follow a cyclic four-step process: planning, taking action,

evaluating the action, and then planning further. Within this iterative process, action
research yields various forms of knowledge, including practical and propositional. It also

contributes to the generation or refinement of theory (Waterman, Tillen, Dickson, and De

Koning 2001:11). However, the primary significance of action research lies in its

engagement with and enhancement of real-life problems (Eriksson and Kovalainen

2008:195).

In contrast to traditional social research, which often focuses on individuals within

their life worlds and social contexts (Bentz and Shapiro 1998:4), action research assigns

equal importance to research, action, and evaluation or reflection. As expressed by Glesne

and Peshkin (1992:11), the role of the researcher in action research is akin to a facilitator

who collaboratively involves stakeholders in all aspects of the research process.

Lastly, action researchers openly acknowledge their bias to other participants,

eschewing attempts to maintain objectivity. Consequently, action research aligns with the

pragmatic, realist paradigm within the qualitative research domain (Eriksson and Kovalainen

2008:196).
 Reference

Auriacombe, C. J. (2015). Closing the gap between theory and practice with action research.
African Journal of Public Affairs, 8(3). Retrieved from
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/95456482.pdf
Goh, L. (2012). A practical guide in writing your action research. ResearchGate. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260165376
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research reader. Third edition. Victoria: Deaken
University Press.
Knight, J. (2017). A proposal for the use of peer tutoring to enhance the grammar skills of Business
students at The University of the West Indies, Barbados. Caribbean Teaching Scholar Vol. 3,
No. 1, April 2013, 41–62
 Reference

Bazimaziki, G. (2017). A critical analysis of student teachers’ intervention in language education: A

Study based on Diploma students’ action research reports. International Journal of Scientific
Research and Management (IJSRM) ||Volume||5||Issue||11||Pages||7456-7467||2017|| Website:
www.ijsrm.in ISSN (e): 2321-3418 Index Copernicus value (2015): 57.47 DOI:
10.18535/ijsrm/v5i11.15
Chung, L.M.Y. and Chung, J.W.Y. (2015) Develop a Participatory Model in Nutrition Education to
Prevent Childhood Obesity. Health, 7, 466-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/health.2015.74055
Gentner, D., Stelzer, B., Ramosaj, B., & Brecht, L. (2018). Strategic Foresight of Future B2B
Customer Opportunities through Machine Learning. Technology Innovation Management
Review. Retrieved from:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/reader/9b03314092329c2b40860225aa0138c2acc8c7e2?
fbclid=IwAR2gjM7_nfrgvHmBUJYtSCV5IHDMfn3l8xzwGa9zRGtsS5kF46V2yBIqC2I
Potter, C. (n.d). The Action of Action Research: An Analysis of Action Research Projects
Completed in the UNT/Denton ISD PDS. Retrieved from:
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc86181/m2/1/high_res_d/Potter
%20Codi.pdf?
fbclid=IwAR2DcS8hMLq83fox8klpz0zXVAellGrYioeIUEcBIFMZhQdOCxoGPJMHVk8
Rukanuddin, M. (2013). Action Research on: English Writing Skill of the Tertiary Level Students of
the Colleges of Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences ISSN
2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online) Vol.3, No.4, 2013
Yasmeen, G. (2008). ACTION RESEARCH: AN APPROACH FOR THE TEACHERS IN
HIGHER EDUCATION. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET
October 2008 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 7 Issue 4 Article 5. Retrieved from:
http://www.tojet.net/articles/v7i4/745.pdf?
fbclid=IwAR1utFAjHGChpW7Ocz08xlmWTXM8f86jJHonF3EmNtLaBy5X_efs-GSF4ok
Tetui, M., Coe, A., Hurtig, A., Ekirapa-Kiracho, E., & Kiwanuka, S. N. (2017). Experiences
of using a participatory action research approach to strengthen district local
capacity in Eastern Uganda. Global Health Action, 10(sup4),
1346038. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1346038